Overboard incidents, will they ever change the design of decks?

[LMaxwell]

43 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

 

As for RFID as wearable or cabin card, if that was common knowledge, do you think that would stop a person consciously trying to commit suicide?  Just dump the RFID device.

 

No, won't stop them.  Might be useful for the drunks that are having fun railing hopping though.  

 

Look, I'm just wondering about uses of technology exists to have a higher rescue rate

 

Might be nice to have technology have a positive impact on these things.  Given your response, and decades in the industry, it's a lot more clear why the industry doesn't pursue it - head in sand and afraid of liability. 

[sparks1093]

19 minutes ago, LMaxwell said:

 

No, won't stop them.  Might be useful for the drunks that are having fun railing hopping though.  

 

Look, I'm just wondering about uses of technology exists to have a higher rescue rate

 

Might be nice to have technology have a positive impact on these things.  Given your response, and decades in the industry, it's a lot more clear why the industry doesn't pursue it - head in sand and afraid of liability. 

So if a salesman showed up at your door and offered to sell you a system for $100,000 that would cut your energy use by 3/4's you would buy it even if they had no hard data to support their claim? That is what I believe cheng is saying- the systems are expensive and there is too little data to support the claims. That's not head in the sand/afraid of liability in my book, it's good business sense.

[LMaxwell]

11 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

So if a salesman showed up at your door and offered to sell you a system for $100,000 that would cut your energy use by 3/4's you would buy it even if they had no hard data to support their claim? That is what I believe cheng is saying- the systems are expensive and there is too little data to support the claims. That's not head in the sand/afraid of liability in my book, it's good business sense.

".  

 

Nothing is 100% effective.  Airbags in cars are NOT 100% effective.  When they came out and passive restraint systems were mandated automakers got around it using those awful 2 point automatic belts with manual lap belts; when people circumvented the system by not using the lap belts the protection they had was inferior and not adequate.  the costs of airbags in a car were going to RUIN the industry.  Flash forward almost 30 years; airbags have not ruined the industry, the automatic 2 point belts are laughable, no one would dream of buying a new car without an airbag, and it is common for cars to have 6-14 airbags now in them, not just one or two.  Even though they don't work 100% of the time, enough proof has shown that when used properly they make a big difference.  If we had listened to the auto industry only cars would still not have airbags.  

 

Industry tends to be recalcitrant on things that produce additional costs but can't really track any revenue increase.  It's not sexy or something they can hype up, and so long as they can say well it's not completely effective they'll get away without having to use them.  But it would seem the technology has advanced enough to make a positive impact.  

 

Anyways, waiting for someone to prove a system works completely every time and without fail or error is basically saying you'll never try it.  Look at Chengs response to the RFID proposal; people will just remove the RFID and then go kill themselves.  Possibly.  Could happen.  Not unrealistic.  But for the drunks or daredevils it would help them, no? Possibly.  What's more important; human life or profit margins?  Do you really think MSC installed a system for PR only and did not see any practicality or were not shown data that supported the manufacturers claims?  Does Disney go through the expense to install a non-working system only for PR?  That would make no sense. 

 

I'm just saying the industry can do things to minimize these events and chooses not to.  And it's all about money.  Like lifeguards on ships.  It was too expensive.  too much liability.  Don't need them.  blah blah blah.  Well, now most mass market ships have life guards; won't be 100% effective but it's using resources to go in the right direction.  

Edited December 25, 2018 by LMaxwell

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, LMaxwell said:

 

No, won't stop them.  Might be useful for the drunks that are having fun railing hopping though.  

 

Look, I'm just wondering about uses of technology exists to have a higher rescue rate

 

Might be nice to have technology have a positive impact on these things.  Given your response, and decades in the industry, it's a lot more clear why the industry doesn't pursue it - head in sand and afraid of liability. 

Not head in the sand at all, just the realities of business.  You bring up auto seat belts and air bags.  Did the industry voluntarily install these, and did they upgrade them voluntarily, or was it at the requirement of a government regulation or law?  We both know the answer to that.  In a similar vein, what people don't understand is that the cruise lines, every single one of them, and every single ship that calls at US ports, meets the legal requirements of the CVSSA, much to Mr. Walker's chagrin, based on the most recent delineation by the USCG, which is the agency that enforces the CVSSA.  The law only requires a video capture method (read camera along the side and a video recorder), period.  It gives the option to have an automated alert system, but it is not required.  And nowadays, safety features like 15 air bags sells cars (how many tout their safety feature packages in ads?), but that's a long way from seeing that ships that advertise a MOB system would gain more passengers than those without.

 

And, any company that is not afraid of product liability is doing the owners (stockholders) a disservice.  That is not to say that fear of liability should be the driving force behind a company, but that it must be part of the business equation.

 

As I said, until the law changes and the ships no longer meet the legal requirements, the companies touting this technology need to provide real life testing by putting their equipment on ships, a wide spectrum of ships to provide a meaningful data pool, without obligation to the ship owner.  Not against the technology, but just don't feel it would have as much benefit as proponents believe.  I have talked to USCG cutter crews, who train for man overboard all the time, and who know when a dummy is thrown, and who have an entire crew trained for searching and spotting objects at sea, and yet they have still returned to base without the bright orange dressed dummy, because they couldn't find it.

[sparks1093]

1 hour ago, LMaxwell said:

".  

 

Nothing is 100% effective.  Airbags in cars are NOT 100% effective.  When they came out and passive restraint systems were mandated automakers got around it using those awful 2 point automatic belts with manual lap belts; when people circumvented the system by not using the lap belts the protection they had was inferior and not adequate.  the costs of airbags in a car were going to RUIN the industry.  Flash forward almost 30 years; airbags have not ruined the industry, the automatic 2 point belts are laughable, no one would dream of buying a new car without an airbag, and it is common for cars to have 6-14 airbags now in them, not just one or two.  Even though they don't work 100% of the time, enough proof has shown that when used properly they make a big difference.  If we had listened to the auto industry only cars would still not have airbags.  

 

Industry tends to be recalcitrant on things that produce additional costs but can't really track any revenue increase.  It's not sexy or something they can hype up, and so long as they can say well it's not completely effective they'll get away without having to use them.  But it would seem the technology has advanced enough to make a positive impact.  

 

Anyways, waiting for someone to prove a system works completely every time and without fail or error is basically saying you'll never try it.  Look at Chengs response to the RFID proposal; people will just remove the RFID and then go kill themselves.  Possibly.  Could happen.  Not unrealistic.  But for the drunks or daredevils it would help them, no? Possibly.  What's more important; human life or profit margins?  Do you really think MSC installed a system for PR only and did not see any practicality or were not shown data that supported the manufacturers claims?  Does Disney go through the expense to install a non-working system only for PR?  That would make no sense. 

 

I'm just saying the industry can do things to minimize these events and chooses not to.  And it's all about money.  Like lifeguards on ships.  It was too expensive.  too much liability.  Don't need them.  blah blah blah.  Well, now most mass market ships have life guards; won't be 100% effective but it's using resources to go in the right direction.  

Of course it's all about money, that's the name of the game in business. And nowhere did I say that the system needed to be 100% effective. The cruise lines do need to see enough effectiveness however to warrant the expenditure of the money in the first place (which is nothing more than Return on Investment). As I understand RFID technology the transmission range is very limited, so while I'm no expert by any means I have my doubts that any such system would be useful.

[IPlayWithString]

On 12/24/2018 at 8:12 AM, sparks1093 said:

I don't believe the law imparts a liability to anyone to keep an unrelated person from being a fool. If their parents can't control them no one else can.

IDK what the law actually says, tbh, but I can guarantee (almost. Probably.) that the parents of said injured idiot teenage boy would probably sue every adult who was in the pool at the moment of the accident because they're adults and clearly they SHOULD have stopped their child (who they were not with) from acting like an idiot. Supposedly, there is a log of who entered the pool and when that the HOA can access. Supposedly you are logged in when you scan your card to open the gate.

 

This is how society works these days...you don't take personal responsibility for your own stupidity...you make somebody else do it. Nothing is ever anyone's own fault..it must be somebody else's fault because of...IDK. Reasons. I guess.

 

(And yes, I'm cynical. I know that.)

[sparks1093]

30 minutes ago, IPlayWithString said:

IDK what the law actually says, tbh, but I can guarantee (almost. Probably.) that the parents of said injured idiot teenage boy would probably sue every adult who was in the pool at the moment of the accident because they're adults and clearly they SHOULD have stopped their child (who they were not with) from acting like an idiot. Supposedly, there is a log of who entered the pool and when that the HOA can access. Supposedly you are logged in when you scan your card to open the gate.

 

This is how society works these days...you don't take personal responsibility for your own stupidity...you make somebody else do it. Nothing is ever anyone's own fault..it must be somebody else's fault because of...IDK. Reasons. I guess.

 

(And yes, I'm cynical. I know that.)

I have no responsibility for someone else's children unless I'm in a direct position to be held so responsible, such as being a life guard or a day care provider or bringing someone else's child on a cruise. My being a by-stander is not enough to give me any responsibility at all and it's also true in this day and age that if you try to correct the behavior of someone else's children you're likely to be verbally or even physically for your efforts. Sure, a lawyer is going to include as many as possible on any lawsuit but they generally focus on those with the deep pockets and my pockets aren't that deep.

[Lovefuninthesun]

What about the little girl last year that fell from an upper deck (inside) in the atrium and was killed?

That was really weird -- I couldn't for the life of me figure out how that was possible.

[Elaine5715]

6 minutes ago, Lovefuninthesun said:

What about the little girl last year that fell from an upper deck (inside) in the atrium and was killed?

That was really weird -- I couldn't for the life of me figure out how that was possible.

She was hanging well over the railing after crawling up and was waving at family, lost her balance and went head down into the lobby.

[Elaine5715]

On 12/25/2018 at 8:53 AM, chengkp75 said:

Not head in the sand at all, just the realities of business.  You bring up auto seat belts and air bags.  Did the industry voluntarily install these, and did they upgrade them voluntarily, or was it at the requirement of a government regulation or law?  We both know the answer to that.  In a similar vein, what people don't understand is that the cruise lines, every single one of them, and every single ship that calls at US ports, meets the legal requirements of the CVSSA, much to Mr. Walker's chagrin, based on the most recent delineation by the USCG, which is the agency that enforces the CVSSA.  The law only requires a video capture method (read camera along the side and a video recorder), period.  It gives the option to have an automated alert system, but it is not required.  And nowadays, safety features like 15 air bags sells cars (how many tout their safety feature packages in ads?), but that's a long way from seeing that ships that advertise a MOB system would gain more passengers than those without.

 

And, any company that is not afraid of product liability is doing the owners (stockholders) a disservice.  That is not to say that fear of liability should be the driving force behind a company, but that it must be part of the business equation.

 

As I said, until the law changes and the ships no longer meet the legal requirements, the companies touting this technology need to provide real life testing by putting their equipment on ships, a wide spectrum of ships to provide a meaningful data pool, without obligation to the ship owner.  Not against the technology, but just don't feel it would have as much benefit as proponents believe.  I have talked to USCG cutter crews, who train for man overboard all the time, and who know when a dummy is thrown, and who have an entire crew trained for searching and spotting objects at sea, and yet they have still returned to base without the bright orange dressed dummy, because they couldn't find it.

Yet, idiots still refuse to use seat belts and prop their legs up on air bags... Goes back to the basic premises, can't fix stupid.

[AmazedByCruising]

On 12/25/2018 at 2:53 PM, chengkp75 said:

Not head in the sand at all, just the realities of business.  You bring up auto seat belts and air bags.  Did the industry voluntarily install these, and did they upgrade them voluntarily, or was it at the requirement of a government regulation or law?  We both know the answer to that.

 

Allow me to say that you might be wrong on the answer.

 

Who invented seat belts in the first place? Certainly not the government. Who proved their effectiveness? Again, not the government. Who paid for development and testing and proceeded to install them voluntarily? Volvo did. Who gave up the patent voluntarily for passenger safety? Again, Volvo did. 

 

The regulations came decades later.

 

Over here, there is no law saying you need an airbag. Still, not a single new car is sold without them.

 

I'm not saying that MOB detectors are effective, but I certainly trust the free market more than you do . People actually like to pay for proven safety. And maybe even if they think MOB detection makes them safer.

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by AmazedByCruising

[Elaine5715]

11 minutes ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Allow me to say that you might be wrong on the answer.

 

Who invented seat belts in the first place? Certainly not the government. Who proved their effectiveness? Again, not the government. Who paid for development and testing and proceeded to install them voluntarily? Volvo did. Who gave up the patent voluntarily for passenger safety? Again, Volvo did. 

 

The regulations came decades later.

 

Over here, there is no law saying you need an airbag. Still, not a single new car is sold without them.

 

I'm not saying that MOB detectors are effective, but I certainly trust the free market, where people actually like to pay for proven safety, more than you. 

 

I am not interested in paying more to prevent stupid people from hurting themselves.  I believe in Darwin's theories.  

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

 

Allow me to say that you might be wrong on the answer.

 

Who invented seat belts in the first place? Certainly not the government. Who proved their effectiveness? Again, not the government. Who paid for development and testing and proceeded to install them voluntarily? Volvo did. Who gave up the patent voluntarily for passenger safety? Again, Volvo did. 

 

The regulations came decades later.

 

Over here, there is no law saying you need an airbag. Still, not a single new car is sold without them.

 

I'm not saying that MOB detectors are effective, but I certainly trust the free market more than you do . People actually like to pay for proven safety. And maybe even if they think MOB detection makes them safer.

 

Actually, seat belts were invented before Mr. Bohlin of Volvo, and retractable seat belts were proposed by a US doctor in 1955.  SAAB was the first car company to make seat belts standard equipment.  Mr. Bohlin is credited with patenting the modern combined seat/lap belt in 1958.  Even though Nash and Ford offered seat belts as options in 1955, the idea did not take off (I know, I was traveling in US cars at the time), and very few cars had even lap belts.  It was not until the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that seat belts were mandatory, and to this day we still have the "click it or ticket" campaigns to get people to actually use seat belts.  Can't say how it is in Europe, but that is the history in the US, and it wasn't until the government made them mandatory that they were installed, no matter how advanced anyone had made them.  And it took until 1972 before shoulder belts were mandatory, so they were not put in.

[LMaxwell]

Another unfortunate incident yesterday with crew member overboard from Harmony of the Seas.  Could a MOB Detection System have changed the outcome?  We do not know.  But it would have likely raised chances of successful rescue 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, LMaxwell said:

Another unfortunate incident yesterday with crew member overboard from Harmony of the Seas.  Could a MOB Detection System have changed the outcome?  We do not know.  But it would have likely raised chances of successful rescue 

Well, given that the cruise line admits that there is no video evidence of him going over the side (they saw him "enter a deck area on deck 5, and was never seen again"), then a MOB system would not have seen him either.

[LMaxwell]

Just now, chengkp75 said:

Well, given that the cruise line admits that there is no video evidence of him going over the side (they saw him "enter a deck area on deck 5, and was never seen again"), then a MOB system would not have seen him either.

 

Doesn't MOB use heat signature?  Do current video systems utilize heat signature?  Don't know, am asking 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, LMaxwell said:

 

Doesn't MOB use heat signature?  Do current video systems utilize heat signature?  Don't know, am asking 

Some do, some don't.  Some ships have thermal image cameras along the side in addition to video, some don't.  Given the image quality of the cameras on the ships, an object the size of a human would be visible unless there was blinding rain or dense fog.  Either of those weather conditions would degrade thermal imaging as well.  And, the thermal image is used to discriminate between animate and inanimate objects detected on video.

Edited December 26, 2018 by chengkp75

[AmazedByCruising]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 Can't say how it is in Europe, but that is the history in the US, and it wasn't until the government made them mandatory that they were installed, no matter how advanced anyone had made them.  And it took until 1972 before shoulder belts were mandatory, so they were not put in.

 

Are you saying that virtually no cars had seat belts installed before the benevolent government stepped in to enforce them? 

I find that hard to believe. 

 

 

Long before the government even knew about seat belts or air bags, the industry was working to find new ways to provide more safety. The government couldn't make seat belts mandatory if the industry didn't come up with them first. Then, why did the industry poor billions into passenger safety without the regulations? People actually like safety and are willing to pay for it.

  

(Warning, Libertarian rant starting)

Not car or ship related, but I do own an IT company that has served GPs for the last 18 years. All intelligence in our software (who needs a flu vaccine, what medications can't be taken together, what dosages for kids, etc) has virtually been the same for the last 20 years. Regulations now have put a total halt to innovation in my industry, forcing everyone to implement a standard invented in 2005 that was already oldfashioned at the time. The standard is supposed to save people, for which there is no proof. 90% of our resources are committed to regulations that won't make any patient better, while there's so much low hanging fruit that would have saved lifes or would have bettered people's lifes. In short, the regulations are killing people and it's up to historians to make a guess how many, and how a prime example of a democracy like Holland still had no checks and balances to prevent unnecessary deaths. It really is a bloody shame.

 

 I don't see any reason why the cruise industry, or the car industry, would be any different.