Hi,

Thats exactly the point. Been in "war" countrys many times and always was surprised how friendly the people where. Didnt feel unsafe at all, informed my self were the landmines are and got offered fresh fruits instead of being kidnapped.

Anyway if it comes to the politics every million spend in the rescue of people cant be wasted to financially rescue banks, build projects that become even more expensive at the end and so on.

:D

Hi, i agree with the sentiment of a number of the posts that you are in no more danger than in a UK city. I took my 18 year old son on a 2 month tour (he only passed his test a few months earlier) including places like Russia, Moldova, Bulgaria, Albania, etc not real hot spots but enough for his mother to worry. She did hower accept that he was probably at less risk than going into the centre of Glasgow for a beer with his mates on a Saturday night. Andy

I disagree...are you seriously suggesting that putting your pants on in the morning is as dangerous as a pleasure cruise down the Somali coast or a joy ride through northern Mali? Obviously there are risks, and there are risks, and not everyone is as good as they should be at determining when risk exceeds a reasonable level. Clearly this is a very subjective issue, but...

I completely disagree with this argument. The fact that soldiers/police are willing to risk their lives does not mean that they should have to do so to save from idiot from themselves. The fact that many of them volunteer for the army, or even if they volunteer for particular rescue missions, does not mean that it is right to put their lives at risk by undertaking foolish activities.

I think it all comes down to how you manage and mitigate those risks. People who blunder in with little preparation and get themselves into trouble really do put others at risk, unfairly IMHO. On the other hand well prepared people who
find themselves in an unexpected situation, well that is a whole different story.

I do get quite annoyed by those people who go places, like say Somalia, get kidnapped, held for ransom and then they or their families complain that their government is not doing enough/didn't do enough by refusing to negotiate with the hostage takers.

To that end I have actually instructed our family if we do get caught in hostage situation not to negotiate.

So where should one draw the line ???? It's an impossible situation.

Should I drop driving my car because I might run over a child ? If I was walking I wouldn't be able to hurt anyone ?

Should I never go hill walking in case I break my ankle and a rescue team have to risk themselves to save me ??

If I was unselfish, I'd stop riding my bike because if I crash an ambulance crew might get run over while they're tending to me...

I'm being intentionally ridiculous because it's a ridiculous notion to suggest that we can change the way we live our lives on a global scale to reduce the risks to other people that we have very little affect on.


Craig sums it up quite nicely.......

I'm not going to feel overly guilty if I have to get rescued by Sudanese police in Khartoum but I wouldn't expect them to come and pull me out of a firefight in Darfur.

I have a suspicion that in these countries/situations, the unofficial protocol would be:

"screw you mate, you shouldn't be there anyway"...

That's a pretty good take on it...I sat in a bar in Bosnia where one wall had been shot to pieces and barman looked like a hitman but at no time was there anything like what you see any Friday night if you go into Brighton,no punch ups and girls dragging each other round by the hair...

And what is risky anyway? Should say you travel to a country with a homicide rate 6 times your home country? That instantly rules the US for an Aussie. Naturally the US is not a dangerous place to travel (well maybe if you eat what everyone else does :) ) and nor are many of these so called dangerous places. I just spent 2 weeks in Mexico, great place.

What a question on a mainly Motor cycle forum , which must rate as one of the riskiest activities going :rofl:

regarding involving others , there are a lot of people making a good living out of dealing with things that go pear shaped , and they do it from choice ( I know I did) .

As long as you are not stupid , live life , Que Sera sera JMHO

I didn't read every response to this original thread but is Tacr2man the first to grasp the question? It's 'do we have the right?' n'est pas? Not an invitation to define or quantify risk but a question, should we expect to be saved when it all goes wrong?
In my opinion, we should not. If we need help and it comes, its a blessing, if it doesn't, we must accept the consequences. An uncomfortable truth but I believe that's the diference between adventure and tourism.

I beleive that we do have the right. However, as with every other risky activity, it is selfish to act in a wreckless manner. If you act within your skills and ability then I don't see the problem. Any individual who may be involved in a rescue - be it mountain rescue or military rescue - has already made their own decision that they believe it is worth while to put themselves in a risky situation to rescue someone.

There is always an element of luck. You can never know for sure if there are kidnappers in the area, if the snow slope is going to give way or if the driver coming towards you is steaming drunk. It just educated guessing. The more educated the guess, the less selfish the act, the more you have the right.

Who decides what is a foolish activity?

Some would have stopped Columbus going to America...

NASA considered the space shuttle safe ... but has made some improvements after a number of deaths.

Sorry but the committee on deciding what is a 'foolish activity' does not exist. And that is a good thing. People make poor choices all the time - look at traffic crashes. Most of the time we get away with it. Some times others help. People who go to help also make choices.

Both of your examples are off the mark--we are not talking about putting yourself at risk, of course you have the right to do whatever you want with your own safety. We are talking about putting the lives of potential rescuers at risk. Clearly, neither astronauts nor Columbus could have expected any rescue (and thus no rescuers are involved).

"There is a special place in hell for those who expectedly place others at risk pursuing their own 'rights'." - paraphrasing Dante.

As an American I'm SHOCKED at how often my countrymen expect "rescue" for contriving a crisis that could have been avoided with a bit of preparation, pluck and ahem, "independence".

Without risks . . . there are few rewards. It's a balance that should be considered a priori. If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" then ignorance of the risks is inexcusable.

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." - Helen Keller

Here's an interesting article on a similar topic--whether states should charge their citizens for the cost of their rescue:
For some stranded U.S. adventurers, rescues come at a cost - Yahoo! News

Missed some points.

The rescuee ASKS for help.

Rescuers make the CHOICE. As do ambos, police and fire ... they all make a choice at each situation, even if it is not a 'rescue'. Each individual evaluates the risk/reward and make the decision on going ahead or backing out. If you are a first aider you should know that. It is not compulsory for any one to place their life at risk for another. The rescuer makes the choice (and should evaluate and minimize their risk), not the rescuee.

Who rescues the rescuer?

---------------------------------
If the 'safety committee' thing is done then even those who don't want rescue will be denied. Because "it is too dangerous". Hence NASA, Columbus etc.
==================
The press here in OZ raises the issue of rescue costs, particularly where a 'round the world yacht' is involved.. lots of $$$$ estimated by accountants there. They forget that those services would be idle or practicing without the rescue.