Never allowed in Nanny UK

codprawn · 02 July 2007, 05:05

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBT-2yGXVwU

Awesome - and they take the public on this!!!

Richard B · 02 July 2007, 07:36

The jet boats of that type are very common in New Zealand, operating on Lake Rotorua, Huka Falls and many others. Shotover looks like a good one though, possibly one of the most spectacular!

Mollers · 02 July 2007, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard B

The jet boats of that type are very common in New Zealand, operating on Lake Rotorua, Huka Falls and many others. Shotover looks like a good one though, possibly one of the most spectacular!

Shotover has become slightly 'over commercialised'. The boats are as big as buses and that has taken the edge off it. I did at Westport on the west coast of the South Island. 4 of us togged-up and got in 15ft bare Ali monster with a tuned 7.4ltr lump spinning a 2stage Hamilton Jet. We were then towed across two fields by an ancient Fordson Major and backed into the river. That Shotover clip was seriously tame compared to what 'Doc' was doing with this thing. I was terrified.

http://www.tourism.net.nz/new-zealan...venture-tours/

The pic of the boat is not his boat.

psychopic · 02 July 2007, 10:59

i wonder how huch one of those shootover things are? I could have a lot of fun on one of those...

simmons0 · 02 July 2007, 11:55

I've been on the Huka Falls Jet. It was pretty awesome, missing trees and things by inches, driving in 3 inches of water right by the bank, the occasional 360 spin at 40mph.
Amazing.
H

Stoo · 02 July 2007, 14:47

Well call me a suck, but that thing looks like it's about a sneeze away from a crash on more than one occassion. I'm all for thrill rides, but all it would take is a slight miscalculation on the part of the helmsman and those folks (who probably don't understand the potential for "real" danger...) would be splattered all over the rocks. There's a fine line between "adventure" and serious misfortune...

It does look like fun though!

prairie tuber · 02 July 2007, 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoo

Well call me a suck, but that thing looks like it's about a sneeze away from a crash on more than one occassion. I'm all for thrill rides, but all it would take is a slight miscalculation on the part of the helmsman and those folks (who probably don't understand the potential for "real" danger...) would be splattered all over the rocks. There's a fine line between "adventure" and serious misfortune...

It does look like fun though!

OK, you're a suck.

Seriously, I agree with you completely - I had those same thoughts when watching the video. A quick google search supports your position.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/55257

http://www.scene.co.nz/cms/opinion/2...art1000285.php

http://www.safeoutside.org/risk/Proc...cant accidents

Tims Osprey · 02 July 2007, 18:18

If people wanna take part in these extreme sports then why not! people know the risks so thats their problem not anybody else's. countries like oz and NewZealand have a big extreme sports following, anyway many 1000's x more people are hurt in cars than extreme sports.

Dirk Diggler · 02 July 2007, 18:55

I visited Queenstown in 2001, primarily to take a ride on the Shotover Jet. I arrived there a couple of days after the council had closed the ride down, due to an accident where the steering failed and bounced the boat off the canyon wall, putting several Aussie's in hospital.

I ended up taking several trips with the Kawaru company, that was just as exciting, but without the risks as they use a different bit of the river.

Biggles · 02 July 2007, 19:01

Looks like it was pretty popular. I found another of their vids that showed three of those jet boats.

Cool boats

prairie tuber · 02 July 2007, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

If people wanna take part in these extreme sports then why not! people know the risks so thats their problem not anybody else's. countries like oz and NewZealand have a big extreme sports following, anyway many 1000's x more people are hurt in cars than extreme sports.

That's a fair enough question, and I somewhat agree, but with a few caveats. My take is that if an individual wants to participate in an extreme sport, and can guarantee any SAR costs and medical bills are covered (ie. have adequate insurance so that the public doesn't have to foot any bills), and has a reasonable understanding of the risks then fine. I don't think the car injury analogy applies very well here since vehicle & driver licencing and driving behaviour are extremely highly regulated in virtually any country.

Many extreme sports have organizations (eg. SCUBA diving, sky diving organization) that have developed and enforce minimum standards of training, equipment, because they realize if they don't, the government beaurocrats will swoop in and attempt to do it (and seriously botch it up!). The governments of most first world countries would accept and require that such standards are met (even if they didn't develop them) and won't intervene as long as the # incidents stays relatively low.

In the 3rd world, such standards are often not observed, then again, it is unlikely that such governments will spend a cent on trying to search for or recover you or, provide any medical care if you can't cover the costs. There are a number of Carribean countries, for example, where you can rent SCUBA gear with abslutely no training, and lots & lots of people (mostly tourists) die, because they assume that that the activity must be safe if they are allowed to do it (an undesireble side effect of living in the first world).

Which brings me to commercially operated group tours. Even if it is billed a "thrill ride" the general public/clients will tend to assume it's quite safe, no matter how many waivers they are asked to sign. The degree of government involvement/regulation in the industry is probably more reactive than proactive. In other words, if there is an inordinate amount of incidents, the general public (and particularly the tourism industry itself) within that in particular will likely pressure the government to regulate safety standards more stringently. The last thing most countries' tourism industries want is for their own country to have an international reputation as a dangerous place to visit.

codprawn · 02 July 2007, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by prairie tuber

OK, you're a suck.

Seriously, I agree with you completely - I had those same thoughts when watching the video. A quick google search supports your position.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/55257

http://www.scene.co.nz/cms/opinion/2...art1000285.php

http://www.safeoutside.org/risk/Proc...cant accidents

Some of these comments date back to 2001 - they have carried umpteen thousands of people since.

codprawn · 02 July 2007, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by prairie tuber

In the 3rd world, such standards are often not observed, then again, it is unlikely that such governments will spend a cent on trying to search for or recover you or, provide any medical care if you can't cover the costs. There are a number of Carribean countries, for example, where you can rent SCUBA gear with abslutely no training, and lots & lots of people (mostly tourists) die, because they assume that that the activity must be safe if they are allowed to do it (an undesireble side effect of living in the first world).

That's the trouble with too much nannying that goes on in the West - especially the UK. Quite why people can't work out the risks for themselves is beyond me.

Bungee jumping is a classic example. Quite why anyone would do it head first is beyond me!!!

Biggles · 02 July 2007, 20:27

Some of this is very relevant. Initially I wholeheartedly agreed that Extreme sporters should have insurance for medical costs. But then I wondered what other people think of us Ribsters and how it would affect me. Are we seen as extreme sporters by other people. I have insurance for my boat/car and trailer and some of this will pay out in case of serious injuries in the case of liability but I won't pay anything to use the Hospital or for the Coastguard if required. But maybe thats where our taxes kick in.

Having visited the NHS outpatients at the weekends with my kids and waited 3 hours or more for initial treatment behind a pile of people with sports related injuries. Maybe more insurances should be enforced. After all most of us now have more leisure time than ever before and more exciting/dangerous activities available to us that we take up for one reason or the other.

Biggles · 02 July 2007, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Bungee jumping is a classic example. Quite why anyone would do it head first is beyond me!!!

I haven't done Bungee jumping but what other way is their of doing it. I can't see any reason whatsoever to bungee jump. Principally because I hate heights

codprawn · 02 July 2007, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggles

I haven't done Bungee jumping but what other way is their of doing it. I can't see any reason whatsoever to bungee jump. Principally because I hate heights

It can be done in a full parachute type harness - much safer.

Although I have never done a bungee jump I have fallen off a few times years ago when I used to go climbing - the nylon rope behaves in much the same way!!!

codprawn · 02 July 2007, 20:59

I don't agree with the insurance bit - I mean who decides whats extreme and what isn't? Plenty of people are injured playing golf for example. What about climbing ladders to paint your house - or horse riding - the list is endless.

Which is more irresponsible - a base jumper without insurance or a bunch of drunken fools playing around in an inflatable dinghy?

prairie tuber · 02 July 2007, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggles

Some of this is very relevant. Initially I wholeheartedly agreed that Extreme sporters should have insurance for medical costs. But then I wondered what other people think of us Ribsters and how it would affect me. Are we seen as extreme sporters by other people. I have insurance for my boat/car and trailer and some of this will pay out in case of serious injuries in the case of liability but I won't pay anything to use the Hospital or for the Coastguard if required. But maybe thats where our taxes kick in.

From a Canadian perspective, I can't speak about Ribbing specifically because there just aren't enough of them here to have an impact. But as for private pleasure boats in general in Canada, up until about 10 years ago the federal government had fairly minimal regulatory involvement. This was because the number of boating incidents was deemed low enough not to intervene too heavily. Most incidents that did occur were alcohol related and open liquor on boats had long been illegal anyway...

Then came the PWCs. Incidents went through the roof, and that, in combination with a meddling busybody Chretien Liberal government resulted in boat operator licensing becoming mandatory. Not that the licensing requires any great effort. You pay $40 and write a 40 question mutiple choice test that a chimpanzee could pass, and you've got a boat operator's card, yet more importantly, the government has got your cash.

Biggles · 02 July 2007, 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by prairie tuber

Not that the licensing requires any great effort. You pay $40 and write a 40 question mutiple choice test that a chimpanzee could pass, and you've got a boat operator's card, yet more importantly, the government has got your cash.

Ah, but you miss the point. At least they can say they have done something.

And they have your cash.

prairie tuber · 02 July 2007, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggles

Ah, but you miss the point. At least they can say they have done something.

And they have your cash.

Yes, I did overlook one of the central tenets of Liberal governance, which is:

Do something!, Do anything!

another such tenet is:

If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. Once it stops, subsidize it.