Floods and idiots

[bradley33]

how far do you want to extend that though, criminal offence to rescue any car where the driver blundered, drove drunk? Not rescuing people at bondi who dont swim between the flags?

[Lazarus]

Bradley, I'm only talking about those who deliberately drive past road closed signs into what is obviously deep, fast running water. Those who put others live at peril to rescue them.

Anyone can get caught unawares by a flash flood or make a miscalculation, I've done it, run through 6 inches of water a little too quick and got my electrics wet and had to be towed.
The people I'm talking about are the ones who make a deliberate decision that they know better than the safety authorities who have the seemingly pointless task of trying to keep dumbarses alive.

As to driving drunk, I believe that's already a chargeable offence.

[northdude]

The problem would be proving in court that it was deliberate. Lawyers would be the only winners

[Lazarus]

The problem would be proving in court that it was deliberate. Lawyers would be the only winners

Hard to claim that you accidentally drove around reflective yellow barriers with orange flashing beacons and signs telling you the road is closed though, I would imagine.

[northdude]

Like i said proving it in court is the challenge. Especially if theres no witnesses.

[Oldbloke]

And they may have driven past dozens of road signs where work was completed but signs not removed. Encouraging them to just ignore temporary road signage. Add a lack of experience, an urgent matter to attend to, too much TV and "Housten we have a problem".

[Lazarus]

Fair enough northdude.

Life would be deadly boring if everyone agreed about everything, eh?

I'm absolutely certain that if I posted a comment that a metre was 1000mm there would be those wanting to contradict it.

That's what the makes the world so interesting.

[northdude]

Its actually 100cm

[northdude]

And what seems like common sense to 1 person doesnt even occur to the next guy.

[Lazarus]

Its actually 100cm

[bradley33]

Bradley, I'm only talking about those who deliberately drive past road closed signs into what is obviously deep, fast running water. Those who put others live at peril to rescue them.

Your comment was to make illegal even rescue attempts for people doing the wrong thing. Thats unworkable.

[Oldbloke]

Its actually 100cm

Nope its 39.37 inches idiot.

[Lazarus]

Now see, this's the sort of mass-debate I enjoy

[northdude]

Its actually 100cm

Nope its 39.37 inches idiot.

I'm offended

[Die Judicii]

Like i said proving it in court is the challenge. Especially if theres no witnesses.

The legal eagles have that covered pretty well. Covered by,,,,,, “What normally acceptable person or persons would consider acceptable and believable in general society “

[Die Judicii]

Now see, this's the sort of mass-debate I enjoy

As the rich gentleman Sir Bates,said while introducing his Son. “And this, my Son,,, Master Bates”

[Die Judicii]

how far do you want to extend that though, criminal offence to rescue any car where the driver blundered, drove drunk? Not rescuing people at bondi who dont swim between the flags?

Read my OP Bradley,,,,,,,, It is patently obvious, (even maybe to intellectually bankrupts) that it was a hypothetical solution to a difficult situation. PS: I thought I typed the above slowly Mate.

[S O K A R]

While we're at it maybe we should refuse treatment to smokers who have cancer? Because well you know, they knew what they were doing.
Maybe we should deny returning soldiers help with ptsd? They knew what they signed up for.
The amount of idiocy in here is astounding.

If emergency services do their job properly there won't be an issue, if they can't they should be replaced with someone who can.

[cz515]

Exactly my point boys. And giving a 100k plus fine (six figure) wren a drunk or stuffed person can kill another road user (or a family) and be out of jail within 12 months. How does that pass the pub test or equitable?

[Lazarus]

While we're at it maybe we should refuse treatment to smokers who have cancer? Because well you know, they knew what they were doing.
Maybe we should deny returning soldiers help with ptsd? They knew what they signed up for.
The amount of idiocy in here is astounding.

If emergency services do their job properly there won't be an issue, if they can't they should be replaced with someone who can.

Yes sokar, the number of idiots who refuse to accept that I'm only talking about deliberate decisions to do something patently, proven dangerous trying to defend the indefensible is astounding.
I know there are people who will argue black is white, just to be contrarian, and they are the sort whose arrogance causes them to drive into floods and expect someone to risk their life to save them.

We're going in circles here, if you think you can breathe under water go at it.

[Lazarus]

Exactly my point boys. And giving a 100k plus fine (six figure) wren a drunk or stuffed person can kill another road user (or a family) and be out of jail within 12 months. How does that pass the pub test or equitable?

As I have said over and over Ziad, this isn't about accidents but deliberation

[Lazarus]

Bradley, I'm only talking about those who deliberately drive past road closed signs into what is obviously deep, fast running water. Those who put others live at peril to rescue them.

Your comment was to make illegal even rescue attempts for people doing the wrong thing. Thats unworkable.

Perhaps English isn't your first language Bradley, perhaps you were dropped as a baby, my comment was to fine the driver who goes into obviously dangerous water not make rescue illegal.
You even quoted that point at me.

[SMLEing politely]

Mate if you live in the bush driving through flooded creeks is just part of life ay

[SMLEing politely]

Also around where i live there's creek crossings where the council leave the road closed signs up for weeks after the water goes down, do you get a six figure fine for deliberately driving around those ones too? It is mandatory after all.

[Die Judicii]

Bradley is confused between what I have said and what Lazarus has said. It seems he has morphed the lot.

[cz515]

Laz i understand its coming from a very valid reason. And i don't disagree that's its dumb and very dangerous not just for the occupants of the vehicle but any potential rescuing people. I get that

What i don't think you are getting is my counter argument against yours that.

Should we legislate against all acts of stupidity?

And how to prove the act was deliberate or just an honest mistake or not understanding the conditions.

[Lazarus]

I've always wondered why so many people choose to drive into dangerous water, now I know.

They are among us in growing numbers and this discussion has become pointlessly circular.

As above, those who feel it's their right, be my guest.

[Die Judicii]

I reckon the way this is drawing in the pointless argumentative types can be likened to why so many four wheel drives have the winch mounted on the front end only,,,, So as to pull yourself further into the s**t before getting out completely.

[bradley33]

I realise this isn’t the perfect answer either,,,,,,,,,,,,, But if it was legislated to make it illegal and in fact,,, a criminal offence,,, to rescue or retrieve any vehicles or people that have driven around the signs and into the water. I suspect that in those cases the insurance companies already would refuse any vehicle insurance payouts.

A lot of comments about me morphing comments and not understanding english and being dropped on my head.

Lazarus, I responded to, and am quoting what Die Judici said above, He suggested an idea of making the act of rescue attempt a criminal offence, unless I am reading it reading it wrong.

I said how we would rescue drunk yobs, druggos, people who ignore signs. The good samaritan act might as well be called the 'Entrapment of good citizens act"

[Lazarus]

I had decided to be done with this but, christ help me, my curiosity got the better of me.

Tell me Bradley, are you aware of the concept of criminal negligence?
If not, that is where someone does something obviously dangerous and as a result someone else loses their life. For example, some hoon is doing burnouts or doughnuts, loses control and runs over a pedestrian.

Now, in the context of this "discussion", if I was to drive around road closed signs, into obviously fast moving deep water, get trapped and a passenger in my vehicle dies as a result, should I just be let go with no consequences?

What if myself and my hypothetical passenenger are OK but a member of the fast water rescue team that has to come in after me gets swept away and dies as a result of my totally avoidable behaviour?

Granted, not every rescue involves someone dying, just like not every drunk driver kills someone but do you seriously believe we shouldn't a least try to do something to prevent these behaviours?