Re: [Paddlewise] PFDs

On 06/01/2010 9:29 AM, Dave Kruger wrote:
> Darryl Johnson wrote:
>
>> But the main thing is that I'm just sick and tired of people doing
>> dumbass things and expecting someone to rescue them. Skiing or
>> skidooing in out-of-bounds areas when there is a threat of avalanche,
>> for example. Climbing mountains in the face of threatening weather.
>> It's becoming a drain on western culture -- which is going downhill
>> fast enough -- and I don't want to play any more.
>
>> I'm extremely glad there are people who volunteer to work in areas
>> like nursing, policing, firefighting, SAR, etc. But their work is hard
>> enough without society encouraging the mentally deficient to "do your
>> thing and we'll take care of you regardless."
>
> Darryl, I know what you mean by "I'm just sick and tired of ...": I do
> not have much sympathy for folks who egregiously attempt hard, dangerous
> stunts without the requisite skills or knowledge, and who go into those
> stunts thinking, "If I get into a jam, I'll get rescued." But there are
> some squishy ethical issues here. Stay with me for a while on this:
>
> I agree people do _dumb_ things. I also agree some are _unknowing_. I
> agree I would not risk my life to rescue someone if I was _certain_ I
> would die if I tried to do so.
>
> Some questions to think about:
>
> 1. What's a "dumb" thing? My son is such a skilled rock climber that
> soloing steep rock is as risky for him as walking down a cracked
> sidewalk is for me. We are equally likely to be injured in our
> respective "risky" practices. Yet, we readily respond to an injured
> person who tumbles off a "safe" city sidewalk, falls into a ravine, and
> requires a high angle team to be pulled out. Another example: a family
> of four takes a drive on a rainy day across a mountain pass, goes a
> little too fast around a curve, skids on gravel, and their vehicle
> punches through a guardrail and rolls down a cliff. Their retrieval
> demands a high angle team scramble to their rescue, endangering the team
> members. This is regarded as a good usage of the high angle team. Their
> drive was "risky." Was it "dumb?" Do we feel someone whose vehicle rolls
> off a highway because of their incompetence or poor judgment is in the
> same class as a well-prepared climber who attempts an icy face and gets
> stuck? Similar degrees of risk to the person, similar degrees of hazard
> for the rescuers, similar degrees of competence for the person(s) stuck.
> What's the difference? I think it is this: we ground-pounders are
> "familiar" with driving, and can see ourselves as a possible victim of
> what befel the family of four. So, it's Ok to rescue them. But, the
> climber gets in trouble doing something that is foreign to most of us,
> and it "looks" dangerous as hell ... so we condemn him/her as an
> "idiot," and begrudge the use of resources to rescue him/her.
>

As I wrote somewhere -- I pretty sure -- we all do dumb things from 
time to time. Or we get caught out by unexpected circumstances. It's 
the human condition.

But I think I attempted to differentiate between the "dumb" and the 
"idiotic" by my examples of people skiing in out-of-bounds areas, or 
driving at greatly excessive speeds. I would not judge your son to be 
"idiotic" for his climbing, just as I would not consider myself 
"idiotic" for going out in four-foot waves and 15knot winds. I 
wouldn't let my wife *near* a kayak in those conditions, since at best 
she is a calm day, lilypad dipper or a paddler.

If you can't swim, then wear the PFD. To not do so, or to not have 
some other means of support, is idiotic in my books. If you can swim 
and are confident in your abilities to get back in the boat (or to get 
into a safe situation --whatever that might be) then I'm quite happy 
to have you go without a PFD.

Sure there are a ton of "grey areas". How do I know whether you are 
being incredibly stupid or whether you have skills I can only dream 
of? I don't know. And I'm happy to assume that you have the skills. 
It's the people who are *obviously* unprepared, or doing stupid 
things. ("I wonder if this downed electrical wire is live? I'll touch 
it and see." or "I'm a skilled driver; I can safely drive at triple 
the speed limit on this twisty road.") who irritate the hell out of me.

> 2. How do we determine, in a rescue situation, whether the stranded
> person was "unknowing?" Sure, if its a kid, we expect kids do foolish
> things, unknowingly, and we go get 'em! They're kids! Suppose it's a
> middle-aged woman (or, man) who falls out of her kayak, sans PFD, and
> appears to be drowning. Well, _she_ can't be "unknowing" can she? She's
> an adult! No USCG helo for _her_! So, we watch her drown. Oh, later, we
> find out she was ignorant and did not know anything about PFD's,
> paddling, etc.
>

With regard to paddling: if I see someone who obviously doesn't know, 
I will do me best to help educate them. You see people all the time 
who do not know what they are doing. Some respond nicely to advice; 
some tell you to piss off (or worse). Guess who I'll try to help if 
they get in trouble?

If I see someone drowning while I'm on shore, sad to say, but I'm 
staying on shore. Again, as I said before, I can't swim well myself, 
so me going in is just going to double the casualties. I will try to 
attract the attention of others who might be better swimmers. But if 
you tell me you can't swim and then you jump into the pool... well, 
you can guess that I'm turning my back on you and going to the local 
pub for a pint.

> 3. Finally, how do we figure out when a rescue is "certain" to kill a
> rescuer? Sometimes it's easy: kid is stuck in a huge hydraulic below a
> raging waterfall, circulating in it, and I'm on the bank without a rope
> or anything to help him from the bank. I'm _not_ going into that to help
> him. I know I'll end up like him. that's an easy one. But, if Becky
> falls out of her boat in extremely rough water, wearing her PFD, farmer
> john, and drytop, god-damn it, I'm going to try to get her back in her
> boat, even though I know doing so endangers me, even though I know our
> paddlefloat rescue techniques are not good in very rough water. Why?
> Because I'm _not_ certain I'll die trying to do so.

Yes, but the person you are trying to save isn't doing anything 
idiotic, is she? And there is the emotional attachment to factor in as 
well. What about the person who has rented a boat, goes out without 
any of the suitable gear, in the face of rough water, against all 
advice on shore, and then falls in. Are you going to risk your life to 
save them? Me, I'm phoning the Darwin Award people.

And even if you were willing to go to their aid, that's a quality of 
your personality that is laudable. I would NEVER attempt to discourage 
people from being helpful. If no one had compassion for their fellow 
humans, or wanted a better society, we'd have no police, firemen, 
doctors, nurses, etc. And we'd all the the worse for it.

I'm just making *my* stand on the "idiots". They seem to be increasing 
in numbers, especially on the roads, and I'm going to be really 
annoyed if one of them kills me. I think they all need a good slap 
upside the head (with a brick, in some cases).

>
> Peace, Darryl. I think we share a lot of common ground on this. But I
> think some of that ground is a bit uncertain. Here's what I am concerned
> about: For the majority of the public, what we do in our tiny little
> boats looks "dangerous" to them. If it comes to pass that we are viewed
> as the public now regards well-prepared mountain climbers, it may be
> that rescues of "taboo" sea kayak paddlers will also be verboten. If
> they seem dumb, or knowing, or "mentally deficient". I support
> reasonable attempts to rescue stranded people, with minimal risk to the
> rescuers ... and I support reasonable means to reduce the cost to the
> public for rescues, in people and money. If we decide "all mountain
> climbers stuck on a steep face" are unworthy of rescues, then maybe next
> will be "all sea kayakers in rough water" and somewhere down the line
> will be "idiots who slide off slippery roads and crash down a cliff."
>

Certainly, that seems to be the direction in which politicians are 
leaning. At least with regard to paddlesports. <Sigh>

And I think that about exhausts this issue for me.

NO: you're not an idiot for not wearing a PFD if you feel comfortable 
in the conditions.

YES: we all screw up from time. (I do my best to keep the average up.)

Sh*t happens. Be prepared.

-- 
   Darryl
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************