Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Not again!!! When will these pricks learn.

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by gegvasco, Dec 19, 2008.

  1. These idiots need to stop racing around the South Pole. The temptation is for them to "cut the corner" so to speak and go further south to save time. And guess what happens. They get into trouble due the shocking weather and then Australia then has to spend millions bailing them out. And do we see any of the insurance payout when they lose their boat? No, that money goes towards financing their next attempt at this ridiculous race.

    $10 million the Bullimore/Dubois rescue cost Australian taxpayers. That doesn't include Dinelli a month before Bullimore, or Autissier...what, rescued 3 times now? We can't not provide assistance under International Law so the organisers and sailors are making best use of that.

  2. They should have extra insurance to cover them for their choice of risky activity.....

    wait.... hang on....
  3. Yeah, mate. They should be at home, knitting grey cardigans for pensioners.
  4. Oh, so you're happy that Australia is being FORCED to pay millions so that some sailor can win a foreign yacht race? I'm certainly not.

    I also have another perspective given I was on the Bullimore rescue. We were 1300nm from land, operating in extremely marginal weather, with no hope of any help if we had a problem with the aircraft. In fact the chances of surviving even a controlled ditching in those seas were about zero. So, cost to the Australian taxpayer aside, I don't think it is appropriate that Australian service people should be taking on extra risk because some yacht race rewards risk takers.

    I have no problem helping legitimate yachtsmen who are doing all the right things to keep themselves safe when they get into trouble. It is a moral and legal obligation. But that system is based on sailors applying safe practices and not placing themselves in undue risk. There is a moral obligation on them to try to avoid trouble. This is not what these competitors are doing. Most will do the right thing and not go too far south. But the stupid and ambitious are the ones getting into trouble.
  5. If I had the cash, I'd have a go at that kind of boat ride. I love sailing and that would be the adventure of a lifetime.

    Sure things can go wrong with sailing, but it's not only near Australia that people run into trouble. Many countries undertake rescues in dangerous waters to save forign citizens. We'd want Australian sailors resuced from these circumstanses so it's only fair that we show other nations' sailors the same respect. On the water, the risks are known to everyone and under no circumstanses (be they private or Navy) will any sailor leave another stranded in the water. The distance and danger rescuers face is testament to their character and the strength of this value in the activity.

    It's not the place of motorcyclists to critisize others for taking part in risky activities. One can only hope that riders would respect and hold the same level of care and detirmination in helping their peers in trouble (I'm happy to find that most do).

    It wouldn't hurt the race organisers to apply rules against going too far south though. It wouldn't happen if it carried a disqualification. :)
  6. Actually, I think given how many time we have had to rescue these dopes, that they HAVE learned......
  7. Ah the humorous adventures of people lost at sea....

  8. How about looking at it from another perspective ....... as a training exercise for our navy?

    They sure as hell don't get out there as often as they should, so this sort of thing is a bonus for them.
  9. Wait a minute. It costs millions to rescue these people, so therefore the Australian navy costs taxpayers $0 when they aren't out rescusing these guys? Or is it that it costs millions to run the navy anyway, and it's a convenient excuse to label using the Navy for non-official defence purposes as suddenly costing the taxpayers more money than they otherwise would?
  10. Cleverest person smuggling racket ever.
  11. this should be the only way they let french people in australia.

    after all we can get our french bread from the vietnamese. appart from shit cars and wine (which can be found in other areas) do they contribute to our society?
  12. Something like that - ships are not meant to be tied up at the dock, it's a huge waste of money and resources. We're paying for the personnel and equipment regardless. The navy don't get much Southern Ocean experience otherwise and it's not like it happens every second day or anything.
  13. Well there's foie gras .....
  14. MMMM Foie gras, Lets all be as humane as the french and force feed ducks A high fat diet so their livers become enlarged and fatty at almost 3 times the rate of a normal bird.
  15. So you had to do the job your paid for?

    It actually sounds like an excellent adventure to me, not to mention great field practice and awesome after dinner annecdotes to wow your family and friends with. Well done, but I can't understand the grumpiness mate?

    PS. The french do truly excellent coffee as well as their haughty accents...
  16. Having been in the navy for 10 years I can speak with a little authority about this.

    In real dollar terms, it DOES cost extra money to send a warship to a non budgeted / non planned destination - and it IS really expensive.

    it's not so much in wages, we're paid regardless... but diesel is not cheap!

    Then the are the extra deck fittings that are required so that crew can be securely fastened to the ship when "outdoors" whilst in the treacherous waters of the southern ocean and the lessening of the life of the ship's hull and fittings and as a result of the "bashing" it gets.

    In terms of the defence force budget, it's not necessarily all that significant - but it certainly isn't chicken feed either.

    Should we do it? (collect wayward / stranded yachties)?

    In a community like ours (bikers) - we're one of the things that makes biking what it is and that being, the comradarie and unselfish offerings of assistance to one another when stranded / broken down... I find it a little "odd" that any biker could entertain the idea of not helping.

    Many professions put others in front of themselves, for many varied reasons - but ultimately feel a sense of "duty" in providing a service to others.

    Police, for example, are paid an absolute pittance for the tasks they perform and the inherent risk they take onboard, daily. None the less, despite their ludicrous salaries, an extremely high percentage don't ever second guess the value of what they're doing.

    This isn't a personal "dig" at anyone, "I" feel that regardless of our obligations under any law, it is our duty to each other as humans that we render all assistance that we can at all times, to those in need.

    While in practice it isn't anywhere like this, (especially with me - I know that at times I can be just as selfish and self centred as the next guy) - it is my own personal duty to strive for that ideal.

  17. Do any of you whingers actually knit grey Cardigans?
  18. So many missing the point. These people are deliberately putting themselves in harms way. For what. A fcking boat race. I'm sure it is important to them but to the loss of their life? Like I said, the majority of sailor's in the race are smart and don't take ridiculous risks. As an example, the sailor in the race in 96 who picked up Raphaele Dinelli was a couple of hundred miles further north than the blokes who got in trouble ie. out of the really bad weather. To further illustrate that some people think and others don't, he also had a flouro yellow hull which would have stood out like dogs balls if he was in trouble. None of the blokes who got in trouble had that and it was near on impossible to spot them in a sea of 90% whitecaps. He was smart because he prioritised his safety over aesthetics.

    As for the cost, the same bullshit argument was put up in 96 that it was activity that we would have been doing as training anyway so it was better than what we would have been doing. Rubbish. As has been stated, diesel costs a shitload and when expended in this type of activity, is above what was budgeted for. Sure, the government will top up the fuel budget for "National tasking" like this, but that comes out of consolidated revenue ie. your pocket, above and beyond what the Navy was supposed to spend. Also, the flight hours spent in 96 had a huge impact on our training. We would never have spent so many hours doing that type of training. Which meant the experience was applied to only the crews involved while the rest missed out because we didn't have any "training" hours left. It was 8 hours per crew to deploy/redeploy(5 crews total) plus on each 12 hour sortie, it was 8 hours transit. That is all dead time and at $10,000 per hour, it was a lot of waste. This is why the other point about whinging about doing what we were being paid to do is also bollocks. We get paid to do the best we can with what we have and the Bullimore extravaganza was a grossly inefficient expenditure of limited resources. And again, why? Because some morons wanted to take some extra risks to win a race. Oh, and what didn't get much airplay in 96 was that the nearest large merchant ship was diverted to the area, had been steaming off course for about 2-3 days before HMAS Adelaide picked them up and then had to get back on course. That must have cost that company tens of thousands as well.

    As for helping out, I'm not saying we shouldn't. What I'm saying is that these people shouldn't be allowed to deliberately place themselves in such critical risk expecting that someone(be it Australia, NZ or whoever) will have to come and help them. In 96 this is what the French wanker who organised the race said - he didn't care about the cost to Australia because we were obligated to do it. He discounted any suggested rule that they place a limit on how far south they can go to try to keep them safe.

    As for riders being risk takers and therefore shouldn't throw stones at competitive boaties, that is like saying that there shouldn't be any rules on the road against irresponsible and dangerous behaviour. Even if it is only yourself that is at risk. So if you think there are similarities, then there SHOULD be rules preventing these guys from going too far south.

    I have been involved in a number of search and rescues and with the exception of Bullimore and Dubois, all were legitimate mariners who were caught out by bad luck. It happens and that is why we are there to help. They weren't reckless racers who had been seriously pressing their luck by carelessly putting themselves in harms way expecting countries like Australia to pick up the tab for their stupidity catching them out.
  19. This stuff will always happen, for as long as Humans seek adventure.

    Get over it, you lot.
  20. In this case, not if the organisers disqualify anyone that goes below say 50 degrees south. Apparently there is a saying - "Below 40 degrees south there is no mercy, below 50 degrees south there is no God." All of the guys in trouble in 96 were below that line.