Stupidity seen at Beachy Head this Weekend

how many of today’s ‘bad drivers’ have never, for example, ridden a bicycle to school when they were younger?

Maybe more than had the opportunity to actually see a cliff edge when they were younger?

The bane of my firefighter friends life was OLDER motorcyclists; the younger ones apparently came with a lack of experience which actually made them wary of things like sharp bends and oncoming traffic (plus there were plenty of replacements) whereas the ‘born again bikers‘ were coming back to it after a decade or two away, with dulled reactions but that feeling of invincibility that having a car wrapped around you gave – without realising that they were no longer in a car, now being just on two wheels.

Joining some form of cadets might help instill a sense of proportion with cliff edges and educate them about things like rock climbing and abseiling…;o)

Perhaps a picture of someone who has fallen from a great height might wipe the stupid looks off some peoples faces.

Probably not.
You are an ex-para – not having a go but would a photo of some whose parachute hadn’t opened have deterred you? They put warnings on the side of fag packets and in other countries there have been images of a diseased lung during a postmortem. A firefighter I used to know wanted to make every m/c rider watch a brigade video that he’d had to watch which showed brains being tipped out of a helmet, post crash, and also illustrated graphically why riders should wear leathers. Drink drivers don’t heed the warnings unless they’re sober either.
What makes you think these danger-seekers will take notice of anything except a 3m wall near the edge?

Linc – you’ve thrown a few different coloured balls in the air to juggle with. We don’t have hypothecated tax in the country, anyway. And the question of waste and inefficiency rather takes us away from what we are discussing, although more than relevant for another thread.

CD – true and over time the total cost would be reduce but the cost per incident would remain about the same. But in reality you cannot usefully forecast accident rates overall. Because they are accidents and therefore unpredictable. All you have to work on is historical precedence.

Yes of course that’s true but the point is that whether or not the accident is deemed as a result of foolhardy behaviour or not is irrelevant. The cost is there, so if people want individuals to bear the cost of their stupidity then it will not be the total cost but the one-off cost of attending the incident. A few gallons of diesel, perhaps….. And then someone has to make a judgement as to blame. I could foresee a few appeals along the way….so you have the legal costs etc etc…..a road to nowhere, except to top up the laywers bank balances.

Warren, So, cut to the chase, many of the Services have been allocated a budget, which is given to each of the Emergency Services, so, in actual fact, they are doing their job within those means/budget.
Why not lump ALL the money gleaned from Speed Traps, Cameras, Specs, Parking tickets el al into a pot where all the Emergency Services can draw from?.
Better still, fill all those bloody Pot Holes in, which undoubtably contribute to God only knows how many accidents they cause?.
It’s only the other days news, that a young child, had part of his finger trapped, and cut off, in a Supermarket door or something similar, and they called the Air Ambulance in, why?, wouldn’t it have been cheaper to transport the child to Hospital via a normal Ambulance?.
There is huge amount of money that the NHS could save by making cut backs, mainly from Managerial level down.They even have Managers, managing other Managers, but you can still, (As what happened a few nights ago) wait for several hours in A&E before being seen, and we were THE only ones waiting to be seen.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Yes but you cannot ascribe a per case cost on that basis because those services exist and are budgeted for paid out of tax receipts and borrowing. If there were no accident emergency call-outs the costs would still be there…

No, if there were no road accidents there would be fewer Fire, Ambulance and Police personnel.

Tax receipts and borrowing are still ‘costs’ and those costs are still real even if the emergency services are just sitting there waiting for an accident to occur; how else could a realistic ‘cost per accident’ be calculated?

Because we live in a cosseted and endlessly protected society we’ve largely lost the capacity for estimating and measuring personal risk and that is a major problem.

I agree; how many of today’s ‘bad drivers’ have never, for example, ridden a bicycle to school when they were younger?

Because we live in a cosseted and endlessly protected society we’ve largely lost the capacity for estimating and measuring personal risk and that is a major problem.

Seconded!

Re 25

My particular ‘take’ on this matter is that we should all be a bit more robust about risk taking. And, I don’t mean setting fire to one’s house – at least, not while you’re in it !

The people who work in rescue services, work in it because they enjoy what they do, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. When they’re in action they are testing themselves – their courage and commitment and judgment and, from what I know of them – I live ‘cheek by jowl’ with the local RNLI service – they very certainly wouldn’t have it any other way.

Because we live in a cosseted and endlessly protected society we’ve largely lost the capacity for estimating and measuring personal risk and that is a major problem.

Yes but you cannot ascribe a per case cost on that basis because those services exist and are budgeted for paid out of tax receipts and borrowing. If there were no accident emergency call-outs the costs would still be there. The bulk of the costs are in the fixed costs and overheads. The per incident costs are relatively small. You cold divide the total cost by the number of events and thereby produce a real cost per incident. But what does that achieve, other than actually reduce the cost per incident, the more there are?

I hear what you are saying but I could well believe the figure, even if it is something primarily designed to grab attention.

Let us say we just look at the Fire and Rescue Service (rescue service because a smaller proportion of their time is now spent fire-fighting). How much does this service cost; and how much of that resource is spent attending road accidents? What proportion of those accidents are, or become, fatal? I think there are about 1700 fatal road accidents in the United Kingdom each year so we can estimate the average cost per fatality.

And we must include all the costs of providing these essential services: the wages (the pensions), the buildings, the training, the equipment, the maintenance, the administration and the fuel, power and heating too because these costs, or a proportion of them at least, are only incurred because there are road accidents.

And that is just the Fire Service; there are the Police too (Jim’s pension, at least part of it, is a cost of that fatal RTA all those years ago), the Ambulance Service, the Coroner, the Courts and all the Department of Transport measures designed to prevent accidents.

We expect these things to be there when we need them but unless we did need them no government would spend the billions that they cost (or make efforts to save some of that cost).

I would like to know where they get the figure of 2 mill from, for dealing with a Fatal RTA
Jim.
Lincoln .7

My question too, a few posts back, Linc. I think it falls into the popular category of “think of the number which will give greatest support to the cause we want to promote”. I doubt it has much basis in reality.

I would like to know where they get the figure of 2 mill from, for dealing with a Fatal RTA. I well remember one time, when a motorcyclist “T” boned a car and was killled. I cordoned the road off, did all the triangulations and road measurements, took all the photographs, called the Ambulace, recorded statements, etc, and then ended up being the Coroners Officer. I had no help whatsoever, and the whole lot, including the (Later) paperwork, must have taken about two hrs.
I recon, that all motorcyclists who have, or are the cause of a serious RTA, should be made to attend a P.M. I bet that that would alter their riding.
It also pees me off to see motorcyclists riding in shorts, and a “T” shirt, I have attended many accidents, where a motorcyclist has come off, mainly on a Bend, and skidded on the road, I have seen skin and flesh ripped off right down to the bones of these riders, when a good set of leathers would have saved them the agony of having their bodies ripped open.
There again, it’s their choice.And yes, I have had several motorcycles in my life.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

As an ex para I would not sod about at the edge of those cliffs. Perhaps a picture of someone who has fallen from a great height might wipe the stupid looks off some peoples faces. I wonder how long it will take the base jumpers to give it a go?

True, but we all have to go to sleep at night.

I’d usually be the first to encourage a bit of risk-taking, especially by the young, but in a controlled environment; modern life, and especially modern education, is a bit short on adventure. Having said that there is a difference between adventure and misadventure!

We should accept some risk with adventurous activity, there being a far higher benefit from the adventure, but when the overall ‘costs’ to society far outweigh the benefits then it is time for the ‘nanny state’ to step in.

In today’s blame, compensation and insurance driven society, one person falling from a cliff would probably result in serious restrictions in future access for everybody else; I couldn’t give a toss if somebody wants to risk their own life so long as they do it without consequence for other people…

…’freedom’ and ‘responsibility’ is a double-edged sword!

During a visit to Dunnet head back in 1987 (vertical cliff,proper rock – unlike the cheese in sussex ; ))
Strong and steady wind blowing – young american tourist hanging WAY out over the edge with arms outstretched and saying ”you must try this it is really safe”… not me guv – I am scared of heights LOL – always made people laugh since I was a very active glider pilot then ; )
So really I am saying – maybe depends on which particular cliff edge you are on !
The Dunnet Head cliff edge was fairly safe (as long as the wind blew for our american friend),the Sussex chalk cliff edges are feckin lethal…only a richard head would go near the edge !

Killing yourself can be one of those random events you have no control of.
Stand on the edge of a cliff and you’ll probably be okay. Fall off a ladder while cleaning the guttering and you’ll probably break your neck.
If fact the most dangerous act we all enjoy is going to sleep in the evening.

I had the feeling this would spark some sort of debate into “Nanny state” etc, and I still feel strongly the actions of these people in the photos are closer to stupidity than they are to the cliff edge. The same person with the camera was later taking photos from the cliff edge of his friends who were then safely inland, not logical at all.

This photo gives an idea of the cracks that have appeared near Birling gap this week showing that the cliff edges are still highly unstable

Cracks in cliffs at Birling Gap by Martin D Stitchener, on Flickr

This bit was taped off as best as you can on a cliff edge and signs were around Birling gap saying try and keep 5 metres from the cliff edge at all times, I can see your point John that rescue services are there to rescue, the fire service are there to put out fires, it doesn’t mean you should set alight to your house. I personally could not care if people in photo had met a nasty end that was their choice,however I do feel it selfish that others would of been put at risk underneath unstable cliffs in a rescue or retrieving of body attempts. By all means a person has the right to put him/herself at risk, but they do not have the right to do that to somebody else even if they are rescue services.

To be honest we probably have a Nanny state because people can not think for themselves and use logic in dangerous situations(maybe this is due to nanny state” though ?) , I agree we shouldn’t need somebody to tell us something so obvious is dangerous. However time and time again its proven people just don’t think for themselves these days.

Yes. But, ‘appalling?’ I don’t think so.

Maybe a poor choice of words but the cumulative effect of people needing ‘rescue’ squanders countless billions every year and blights the lives of the more responsible.

How much NHS and Police time and money is now spent picking-up and treating drunks every Friday and Saturday night? And how many of these drunks will moan about the waiting times or lack of care in hospital when they suffer serious liver problems later in life?

I would like to see how that “2 million pounds” figure is calculated. It seems more back of the fag packet for maximum affect rather than a properly computed figure.