Think how much money this would save. If this money was put into health care this would save many more lifes than the people who drown when a ship sinks which is quite rare.
2006-12-13 00:41:55 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
Good point and actually more lives are lost in the testing of lifeboats than are ever saved by using them.
That is an established fact which has led the industry to reduce the number of lifeboat drills on ships.
Liferafts are a much better option.
As for banning lifeboats as a way of saving money - not sure this would work as the profits from the sale of the boats (plus their maintenance, supplies etc) goes to the company that made or supplies them, and would not find its way into the health care industry.
Hope that helps to answer part of your question? Or looking at your YA! name - was this a wind-up? If so - good one anyway!!
2006-12-13 00:48:11 · answer #1 · answered by superman in disguise 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you are out of touch with reality. Ships sink every day around the world. It just is not newsworthy as only a few people die each time mainly due to the lack of proper life saving equipment such as life boats/rafts/EPRBS/life jackets/radios etc. Also there is always a ferry somewhere in the world every year goes down with hundreds drowned - they are usually mentioned in the news.
I am sure that if you were on a cruise ship which struck a reef (it does happen) you would be the first to rush for the lifeboat pushing aside the women and children
2006-12-13 04:07:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about considering how few people are murdered each year compared to how many die of cancer we disband the police force and use the money towards a cure for cancer?
The lifeboats are paid for by the people who own the ship - they are not paid for out of taxes. I suppose we could levy an international shipping tax but I doubt the UN would go for it.
Also the life boats are not actually very expensive to install and very inexpensive to maintain.
Also the reduced safety features would put off tourists and travellers from using the ships and as such would reduce the amount of money the ships would make - by being there the lifeboats actually will bring in far more profit than their cost for a commercial vessel.
2006-12-13 00:54:34 · answer #3 · answered by monkeymanelvis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everyone on the Titanic or any ship that is sinking would have died if they hadn't had the lifeboats that they did have. Lifeboats live up to their name... they save lives. And no, rescue ships cannot always arrive before people start to sink. There were passengers that died on this last boat catastrophe a few months ago even with the help arriving because they couldn't get the boats off the side of her that had sunk into the water when she drifted over on her side. Lifeboats are there to help save lives. They are needed. Can you swim in the ocean until help does arrive? Would you want to be in that position or put into that jeopardy with sharks that looks for movement of feet in water? Ships usually are a good two hours from each other in the ocean and that isn't enough time to get them there before havoc can get out of hand on the ship that is sinking.
2016-05-23 17:35:22 · answer #4 · answered by Carissa 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is more money involved in Football; We could instead ban super bowls and use that money for health care...
Other than socialism, in the real world, getting rid of the lifeboat would:
Save money for the Ship builder/owner
Kill the industry of lifeboat building
The money saved would not likely end up in health care
In the other hand, IMO health care is more limited by technology than money.
The similar good thinking was used by Ford in the past. (Pinto era)
2006-12-13 00:56:20 · answer #5 · answered by Wrenchmeister 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ever read the real titanic story?... they were short of life boats.. obviously an extreme example but you get the idea...that money would never make it to the government.. if you want to put money into health care stop all the random monuments and unecessary things that happen in our local towns and cities.and that speed bump thing is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.. seeing as i was 5 year old 12 years ago, i am grateful for those maniacs not speeding through my neighbourhood complex.
2006-12-13 03:50:42 · answer #6 · answered by l2onaldinho1010 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many ships today have permission to get rid
of their lifeboats and just carry a quick-launched inflatable rescue boat.
Others have just an "free-fall" boat which "drops" into the water.
Master Mariner
2006-12-13 03:24:55 · answer #7 · answered by swenson0 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the same vein. Get rid of speed humps at 1000 pound a piece.
Let kids die in traffic accidents and save the money that would have been spent on humps to treat others, more deserving, with!
Survival of the fittest, If the kid can't run fast enough....
2006-12-13 00:54:34 · answer #8 · answered by Moorglademover 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i pulled four dead merchant seaman out of the Mediterranean sea last year in horrendous conditions and all because of the lack of sea survival equipment. so no we shouldnt get rid of lifeboats on ships. think how many sailors around the world die each year becuase of the lack of such equipment. WW2 thousands died in the sea maybe somebody from your family. and its not just the drowning its things like hypothermia and being eaten by sharks
2006-12-13 00:58:27 · answer #9 · answered by seamanspraying 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
To save money and to save lives, invest more on health prevention, rather that cures for diseases.
2006-12-13 04:07:43 · answer #10 · answered by glen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋