I agree. I thought it was a good approach.
I think we all know the risk, but our experiences have taught us that nothing ever happens. For the company's liability, it doesn't seem very smart to have brought out people so close, but those people made this choice to go there and be so close. You can't save everyone, and I've found some (most?) people just don't give a sh*t when you point out obvious risks to their behavior.
I still remember not being able to easily buy plastic knives in the UK -- this is another annoying extreme.
Last edited by Elegiaque; 10-12-2019 at 09:56 AM.
It depends how you see it I suppose. I don't want to see such locations restricted either. But then again, if tragic events like this happen, then should we mourn their deaths knowing they took the risk to do this? I mean, its like that American who was killed trying to spread the gospel to a bunch of tribal people on that island in India. He was greeted with a rain of arrows in his first attempt. Any sane person would have taken that as a sign to not return. But he insisted on doing so and was promptly killed. Or what about that Texan who jumped into a creek full of alligators, despite a clear warning sign saying: "No swimming, Gators in the water!". But he insisted on doing so and was again promptly torn to shreds. Same goes for a bunch of people stepping on a volcanic island that can erupt at any time. I mean...could this be more a case of Darwin award winners?
Or am I too cold and harsh here?
Again, this is not the issue here, Commercial entities are naturally held to much higher standards than individuals accepting risk on their own behalf.Original Post Deleted
These were elderly people, cruise passengers and families going on what they thought was a 'safe'excursion, they made their risk assessment by deciding to go on a tour offered through their cruise company by 3 rd parties. Two layers of assessment - the cruise in accepting the third party tour be allowed to advertise and the tour company itself. They relied on the company to have made the necessary safety assessments and to have the expert skills to be able to accurately form opinions on risk .
The frequent comment from those involved and relatives is 'I thought it was safe...they would never have gone if they thought it was risky'. So either the company under-emphasised the risk to these people, or didn't understand / ignored the risk.
Re the commission of Inquiry - in NZ is usually made up of retired Judges & experts, and examines the facts that led to a disaster, so that mistakes can be recitified. Moral issues entirely outside their remit. Most famous probably being the Commission in to the Erebus Flight 901 Air NZ disaster, which produced the quote "an orchestrated litany of lies" when referring to the evidence presented by Air New Zealand.
2 Hong Kong people now thought to be among those still on the Island:
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...rs-believed-be
Yesterday I didn't see international news reporting that they're from Hong Kong. BBC mentioned victims from China. Are they paying lip service to China?
I agree with you to some extent kimwy66. I don't think the island goers were at the same level of extreme risk taking as free climbers, and I do suspect they were naive in not realizing the full risk. Yet, I think people at the end of the day have to accept responsibility for not being perhaps savvy or thoughtful enough. But who knows, perhaps those who got caught up in this knew full well the risk and willingly took it.
We shouldn't say no (too much) to people who want to push their limits as such. If you like free-climbing, that's great. But if I operate the Yosemite National Park, I would prefer no free climbers, because if somebody plummets to their death, that's bad publicity at the very least. More importantly, if some tour organisation starts promoting free-climbing as a risk-free activity for tourists, then I most certainly have a problem with that.Original Post Deleted
So that's three different situations, three different views. In the case of this volcano, I don't think these people were thrill-seekers. NZ didn't choose to limit the access. But if they find that tour companies underplayed the risk to the benefit of their profit, then I think we have a problem.
I just realised the cruise company was Ovation of the Seas. Cruised Alaska with them in May. They are 100% profit driven - all their tours were overpriced crap constantly pushed on passengers. I am completely in the "let people do dangerous things if they want to camp"... but when it's being pushed by these people, I might have to acknowledge that some control is necessary......!