blonde poker forum

Not sure how to attach this link as a video but this from the BBC site shows the panic on board from a passengers camera as people try and get on the lifeboats.

Only time I have ever been on a ship we went through a very long 'muster' practice to get to our allotted muster station and get our life jackets. This also meant that if there had not been enough jackets we would have known before setting sail. We were in Uk waters when we set off. Does anyone know if this is still a legal requiremement or is it just the UK?

On the Costa Concordia some passengers swam to shore because there were not enough lifeboats. This may be because they were unusable because of the way the ship listed? I find it difficult to believe in this day and age that any ship would be allowed to sail without sufficient lifeboats?

Lastly - obv times have changed and no one on that video could be heard shouting "women and children first".
I would hope that I would have the thought to pass any kids to the front but is it for me to play God? I can swim but I don't know how far - would I take my chances in the water?

What would you do?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16565838

As soon as panic starts to set in it would be every man for himself despite what common sense dictates.

Pretty sure I couldn't bump women and kids from lifeboat spots.

Kids are useful for distracting sharks. Just drop one overboard every now and then like a ladle of chum.

I don't think you can honestly say that unless you have been in a life or death situation when blind panic sets in, I'd say all common sense would go out the window for the majority of people. Who's to say who's life is worth more than anyone else's anyway?

All common sense 'would' go out of the window if blind panic set in - but I'd have thought it would be minority of passengers who would suffer from that kind of irrational panicky response.

I think most people would be scared but perfectly capable of thinking about the situation whilst it was hapenning rather than just acting on pure instinct

And how do you know any of that?

I don't - but boats have sunk in the past and anecdotally there hasn't really been any suggestion of 100's and 100's of people losing control.

Obviously there are lots of factors like if it was a day or a night crash, and how much warning there was of it etc etc - but I'd like to think that order wouldn't so easily be broken down amongst such  a large sample size

This is the problem you see. People tend to write this stuff based on what they think they should do without really knowing what they would actually do.

I'm telling you right now if I was faced with a life or death situation I'd do pretty much whatever to save my own ass. I think most people are probably the same but its not following the standard 'ooh ooh the women and children are the most important' line. Their lives are no more important than mine in the whole scheme of life, and to me personally mine is a lot more valuable!  ;whistle;

You can't personally know how you would react react unless it actually hapenned to you - but you can tell how people in general have reacted in the past, and in general there have only been a small minority of people who have acted completely selfishly. Taking past events as evidence would suggest that most people think they would react in a certain way - and in practice they actually end up acting that way.

LOL if can you show me a questionaire of people who they asked what they would do in a life or death situation, then followed them up afterwards to see if they did as they said they would I'll take your word for it.  :D

It's true that you can't honestly say how you would react. I don't think anybody's life is worth more than mine but I do know in a physical situation women and children would be much less able than a fully grown man like myself. So I really hope that even if the unthinkable blind panic sets in I would still take my chances with the physical challenge before I condemned women and children to do likewise. If I pushed women and children out of the way I might have a better chance of survival but thereafter I would be living the life of a coward which isn't greatly desirable to me. I hope somebody would help my loved ones in this situation and in return I would help somebody else's loved ones the best I could. If people don't act this way there is no humanity left, but I think there is, and often it's times of crisis you find courage you never knew you had rather than crumbling into a gibbering mess. No surprise the italian captain fucked off mind you.

To answer some question in the OP.

Yes, it is a requirement to have enough lifejackets and lifeboats for all.

Also, the average age of those on a cruise is younger than you might think. It was 46 on my last cruise which included my 2 kids who had a ball.

I understand the kids first thing by why should women take priority over men? If it's about ability to reproduce (after all the human race is struggling to survive!) then surely young fertile men and women should go before the old?

Nah I just speak to truth mate whereas most like to take the hero line  :D

Joking aside, pretty sure if most people saw they has 20 secs to make a decision to save their life, they would not think beyond themselves and immediate family, certainly not random women and kids they don't know. IMO natural instinct to survive would kick in. Plus I don't have kids so I'm sure that has some influence on the way I might act.

Yeah I'm a bad human being I know  ;whistle;

If your saying that people probably wouldn't be a hero when it comes to it because unless you're faced with that situation you never really don't know what you'll do, how do you know you'd save your own arse and not be a hero?  When the situation arises, anything could happen no?

Possibly, but I still think personal survival is way more likely to kick in than thought for others at the moment of crisis.

U keep saying u wouldn't know how u would react so why do u keep speculating about it Woodsey. Maybe if u saw a child drowning those self preservation thoughts would do one

I've seen first hand what people do when charged by an elephant and it wasn't consideration of others!

There's a woman that runs the Occupational Psych department at Cranfield and she specializes in human factors in Aircraft Safety, she pwns it and has tons of awards. They have a big plane shell there, they do a kazillion experiments with people in it (fill it with smoke, light fires etc). They pore over reams of data from accidents as well as numerous other studies in controlled settings. The reactions, for planes at least, are very well documented. If you fall in front of someone at the exit of a burning plane, they will help you up if you are blocking them, otherwise your head makes a handy 'step' to place their heel on to propel themselves out of the plane. No one gives a damn about anyone else and they will elbow you in the face to get off. You have 2 mins to get off pretty much, otherwise you die. Dunno how all that transfers to boats, am sure much of it is analogous.

As far as the OP q goes, afaik the 'laws' regarding how many lifeboats you have and how they should be available in a listing setup is set out in  the imo listing imo.

http://www.imo.org/Pages/home.aspx

It's the first bit which isn't comparable.

Woodsey mentioned 20 seconds to make a decision.
You've mentioned 2 minutes.

Ships don't sink in 20 seconds or 2 minutes - when a ship sinks you've got a pretty long time to think about what you're doing

Fair point. What maybe matters is the perception of urgency in the minds of those escaping. By all accounts there was a bang then a groan, people thought they were sinking, so wanted to gtfo sharpish.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac.

Now I know it's easy to say, but no way I would ever walk past someone like that.

Come live in London - we'll have that old-fashioned 'caring for strangers' trained out of you in no time. You'll be ignoring the homeless by nightfall.

In a crashed plane with smoke and fire all around, especially with an overwhelming smell of aviation fuel, your natural instincts would be to get the fuck out of dodge. If you think the plane is gonna blow in a few seconds then you are powerless to do anything to influence outcomes. Similarly if an elephant charges all you think is get away because again you are powerless to influence outcomes. Both of these events are too quick and too powerful to take control of or influence, so saving yourself is all good. That is a lot different to booting stricken old people in the head and flinging kids out the way so you don't have to face a 600m swim to shore off the italian coast on a nice day.

Hmmm, someone lying on the floor loooking in pain calling out for help?  Pretty sure I'd not just walk past him too. I'm amazed so many did.

You should try going to poorer parts of the world then mate.

Quite shocked at tall the people in the video just walking past.  I just couldn't walk past someone like that, I would be sickened by my actions if I had.

Then again, I don't live in a city.  Is this pretty standard in London?

Disgusting.

I skimmed this and at first read:

'you'll be igniting the homeless by nightfall'

bit harsh, I thought ;)

The last guy got quick help because they thought it was Prince Harry.




Live in London and wouldn't walk past the above examples.

Why?  I'm not deliberately seeking them out.  Besides, I have been fwiw.

Just saying because its a common occurrence in some places you pretty much have to keep walking. In some area's in the uk people are also so used to tramps, drunks etc that this does not entirely surprise me.

The priority should be those with longest to live first and those who have lived most of their lives and have least left to go should be last, with the rest in between.

Says who? Why should someone like me who as far as I'm concerned is in the prime of my life be valued less than a kid?

Brain surgeons before traffic wardens?

No, we have a big public debt to pay off, save money imo  :-X

Brain surgeons in private practices before NHS brain surgeons?

One and the same bud  :)

FML.........

"Can all those with terminal illnesses, regardless of age, please make their way to the back of the queue for the lifeboats please"

 ;dingdell;

Geo

People with private health insurance before poor people?

Oh yeah. Good one Geo. We could have a cheeky cull and disguise it as an accident. Good thinking.

As I have it, sure why not. I was gonna push my way through anyway but that sounds like a good excuse not to have to  ;D

Absolutely. If places are limited, people with terminal diseases should not be taking places from those who will benefit most and potentially contribute most to the world. Are you saying that someone who will live for six months should get one of the limited places before someone who is likely to live for 50 years?

And how do you plan to get them to admit they have a terminal disease?

Thread has potential to get heated. Awesome!!

TBH John I personally find it beyond belief that anyone can think this.

Geo

In an 'end of the world' type situation where preservation of the human race was concerned then yes you'd have to favour healthier people I suppose.

However this isn't one of those so given the way human nature is in general all the strong people would be helping the weaker ones because that's what we do.

Put it the other way round George. If places are limited, are you saying that someone who has not yet lived much of their life; not yet had children; not made their contribution to the world; should be sacrificed to save someone who has already experienced all those things and is going to die in a short time anyway?

If somebody is young and stupid I'm not sure they should get priority over old and intelligent. Perhaps it would be a good idea for everybody to submit a CV and take a brief numeracy test before they embark so accurate life potential can be assessed by the ship's crew. A middle-aged teacher who produces brilliant students year on year shouldn't be bumped for a young lad who spends his time drinking mad dog 20 20 in bus shelters.

Can you actually measure the value of a life by what it produces or contributes to society?

I'm guessing the 'locked-in' paraplegic is the very first to go?

a+

Nah, first to go would be people unable to grasp the notion of wit.

if that's wit, kill me now.

I think you would be somewhere near the front

I tried very hard not to laugh, but eventually I relented.

To be honest, I've no idea what point your trying to make. Feel free to explain.

In Mantis' defence, it was pretty funny, I nearly wet myself too, Tony.

I just initially scanned your post Mantis, apologies, I thought you were just continuing the sentiments of those in the posts before you. I see now that it was in fact a subtle but ironic attack on their position. Note to self: read all posts of Mantis word-for-word in future to avoid embarrassment.

No worries Manuel, no worries at all, the written word & all that.

Slowly slowly people are at last realising that MANTIS has a physical deformity, in that his tongue is usually wedged firmly in his cheek.

Np np what a gracious post.

In all seriousness I'm a passionate campaigner for equality and that's why I think the 'locked-in' paraplegic should be made to swim for it like the rest of us.

yeah, that'd be equal. jesus.

I often think I should make use of the smiley icons but then again I think fuck it I'm not putting stabilizers on my posts for people who can't ride big bikes. I think it's a great analogy to support why women go first in times of crisis even though they are equals in society which is one of the main arguments in this thread. Happy to carry on spoon feeding you the baby food thou.

probably the complete lack of humour that confused me. easy mistake, in future i'll just avoid taking you seriously, especially when you say 'in all seriousness'

Weather here is lovely today.

Bit chilly but there's a very 'clean' feel in the air.

Yes good idea. In all seriousness paraplegics can't use their arms so they can't swim. Sorry you were confused when I suggested they should swim for it. 

I think I'd throw 4 women, 6 children and Stephen Hawking in the sea just so that Mantis would have some space in the lifeboat to stretch his feet out.

What I'm saying is I'd like to think I'd be orderly, I believe I would be one of those putting myself before others, that's not a billy big balls claim either. I'd be trying where possible to put women and children first because that is the recognised way but it wouldn't neccessarily be possible and circumstances may dictate that we need to evecuate as many people as we can in a short period of time without having the time to make choices.

Even with time I certainly wouldn't be cherrypicking who I thought more needy based on time spent on earth or terminal illness.

Geo

Surely it depends on the available resources.

For example, ship sinking fast, one place left on the only lifeboat and you as Captain have four passagers remaining.

a - An 80 year old
b - A child killer
c - A 10 year old child
d - A person with a terminal illness

All four have equal right to the seat? All four other the same potential contribution to society?

Fuck the passengers, I'd be having that seat!

Just getting silly now.

I'll stay off this thread safe in the knowledge that if I'm ever in this situ I'll do the best I can in the circumstances.

Geo

Please put it into words............

As captain I'm sure oldie and sickie would understand if I look to split up the child killer and the 10 year-old.

It's a fox, goose & corn thing. Take the child; come back empty; take the killer; bring back the child, etc.

I would personally question why I was on a cruise ship when I am under 90 years of age, then I would be happy that most old people are going to be weaker than me and easier to tip off of a dingy.

Is it wrong that I just giggled?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16659090

Gtfo, 'psychological damage'. ooo ooo, my boat hit a rock, will I ever cope again?