h a l f b a k e r y
What's a nice idea like yours doing in a place like this?
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
| |
I should think paramedics would be violently opposed to this. I on the other hand... |
|
| |
Nice in parts but it's a negative I'm afraid - consider the following headlines:
- "Reality Ride" Kid Killed as Backdraft Overwhelms Firefighters.
- "Reality Ride" Kid, 3 Officers Die in Downtown Shootout
- "Reality Ride" Kid left Unsupervised in Ambulance At Emergency. Injects Self With Morphine, Dies
The emergency services have a difficult job to do as it is, extra lollygaggers on the scene can only impair their effectiveness.
To say nothing of the distasteful voyeuristic aspect of this idea, the worthy part (teaching kids about life's rougher edges)is better accomplished by preparing them as best you can for what's out there and closeting them less - your children are already on the Reality Ride, as are we all. |
|
| |
If a jumpseat was added right behind the passenger side front seat so the rider was out of the way then paramedics might not mind it. (There might even be a provision for tipping in cases where the ride proved especially interesting). |
|
| |
DocBrown - The headlines you speak of could already arise from the Ride-Along programs now in effect. For instance, "Kid grabs shotgun and joins police in firefight" is entirely plausible. As for the firefighters, I'm not suggesting they let the riders follow firemen into burning buildings. They're only there to watch. |
|
| |
I'm not too clear on this [longshot9999] - are you arguing that since the potential for a situation where an onlooker could sabotage or impede the work of the emergency services already exists, this justifies increasing the possibility of such an occurrence? Strange logic indeed. |
|
| |
No, I'm arguing that the people who are currently running the programs are rational enough to put safeguards in place to prevent the acts of sabotage and impedance. In addition, I'm in favor of an overall increase in the paying and equipping of our first responders by bringing in more funds by taking advantage of people's natural curiousity. |
|
| |
Given the extraordinary popularity of "America's Dumbest Criminals" type shows, you could quite possibly generate income safely by allowing authorised and safety-trained cameramen to ride along and then sell the footage (contractually owned and vetted by the forces). The shows may or may not be distasteful and voyeuristic, but they will sell. |
|
| |
Except of course, you don't really learn anything by just watching the telly. |
|
| |
wagster - That's pretty much what the TV show called COPS does in the US. I'm not sure if there are any versions of that show in other countries though. |
|
| |
You say "natural curiousity" I say "morbid voyeurism". After reality TV we now have Reality the Ride - no need for TV now you can see and smell the blood, feel the warmth of the flames and taste the salty tears of the victims up close and personal ($10 half hour/$25 hour/$50 day ticket)
These objections aside, what you're proposing must undermine the work of the emergency services because no matter what safeguards are put in place, the firemen/police/paramedics no longer just worry about their own safety and the situation they're in, they now have to consider these onlookers too. There is no prior plan that can mitigate against the rapidly changing parameters of an emergency with 100% effectiveness - the unexpected new blaze, firefight, casualties etc. This idea would place the emergency workers under increased strain, reduce their effectiveness, and endanger the lives of those along for the ride. Fish. |
|
| |
DocBrown - I politely disagree. There are other examples of where something similar to this has been done without endangering the participants. Take the practice of embedding reporters with soldiers for example. It's done with the understanding that the reporters accept all of the risk. The soldiers aren't there to save them. When this has been done one of the unexpected results was a better understanding by the reporters of what the soldiers were going through and more empathy with their position. The same kind of education could take place under my proposed program. In fact, the hope that it will take place is what drove the creation of the original Ride-Along programs. |
|
| |
wait a minute... you are comparing war journalists with paying punters. emm... what? If this is a 'ride' that people are going to want to take let alone pay for then its gotta be a hell of a lot safer than what embedded journalists do. |
|
| |
Plus there was NOT a better understanding of the war by embedding journalists. They just became even more under the control of the military forces. |
|
| |
<Piece-to-camera>
"Today these US marines butchered a family of innocent civilians in cold blood, I think they are war criminals." <cut> |
|
| |
"Ok lads fire up the Hummer I fancy a lift home!" |
|
| |
The example of embedding reporters with soldiers is an interesting idea. Its effectiveness in bringing the public a more realistic idea of what was happening on the ground was questionable. It was, however, a worthwhile exercise because many people have no concept of what war is like, or in many cases, why this particular was fought. This does not apply in the case of the emergency services, whose role is well-defined and well understood. I concede that knowing the police have responsibility to enforce the law and accompanying them to a riot are two very different things, but an understanding of what's going on doesn't have to be underpinned by a personal experience in this case.
It's also worth noting - as you state - that the reporters accepted the risks involved. Doing so did not negate these risks, they still existed, and would exist in the form of injury/death for members of the public on the Reality Ride.
The argument that the soldiers/emergency workers aren't there to save them is disingenuous - we all know that if one of the Reality Riders got into trouble, the emergency workers would do their best to save them, possibly jeopardising others or themselves.
Also, consider the circumstance where a Reality Rider is perceived to have impaired response in an emergency situation involving deaths. Who is responsible? Is it the services for allowing these people to ride in the knowledge that they could get in the way, or is it the person themselves, bound to take responsibility for their own actions, or is no blame to be apportioned since we all accept the dimished level of service that must result from these new emergency services? |
|
| |
DocBrown - The Reality Riders would be responsible for all risks to themselves and the emergency personnel wouldn't stop what they're doing to help them. This is a principle already taught to paramedics. Case example - the paramedics are called to a home where someone is having a heart attack. On the way there they come across a multi-car accident where several lives could be saved if they stop to help. One life or several? The young or the old? Legally they must pass the accident and continue on to the heart attack victim. It would be the same with the Reality Riders. If they were hurt at the scene, regardless of whose fault it was, the duty of the first responders would continue to help the people they were sent to help. It sounds kind of cold, but that's part of reality too. |
|
| |
The issue of a Reality Rider impairing the response is a little trickier. Current programs keep them in their seats. If a rider got out to get a closer look after they'd contractually agreed to stay in it then they would be subject to same laws against inteferring with an officer that any bystander who deliberately got in the way would be subject to. A financial liability could also be incurred via a lawsuit by the victim. Bottom line - the riders should stay in their seats like they said they would. |
|
| |
Another note, if a diminished level of service occurs due to the riders being present this might easily be offset by the increased level of service provided by the extra dollars/pounds/yen the programs bring to the emergency services. |
|
| |
hey Longshot why not go the whole hog and have every service unit accompanied by a live film unit. Each crew has its own cable channel. Sounds great doesn't it!!! |
|
| |
No one of sound mind is going to stay in their seat with flames approaching or bullets flying about. Problems with this idea still unanswered:
-The issue of risk to Riders. Acceptance does not constitute elimination.
-Impaired emergency response due to Riders acting like human beings when the attendant hazards of an emergency situation draw near.
It may be that these are risks which cannot be wholly eliminated under such a scheme. The question then is whether the "edutainment" of those along for the ride should take precedence over their safety and that of the emergency workers, and the lives they are trying to save. I'd say no to that one. |
|
| |
etherman - This is a tangent, but are we too squeamish to handle the truth? Or to put it another way, why is it that only people who watch Al-Jazeera get to see the unedited version of reality? If we decide to kill someone we should be willing to watch the bloody details of it being done in our name. That might help convey the price of our decision. (In this case it would be for education, not entertainment.) |
|
| |
DocBrown -The elimination of risk is impossible, whether we're sitting in a police car or sitting in our own car (we'd probably be safer in the police car though because people are usually trying to get away from them). Risk is a problem we all face in reality and there's little we can do to get away from it as long as we continue to participate in life. |
|
| |
As for the problem of impaired service, I believe it will be balanced out by the offsetting improved service. Luck, as usual, will determine which end of the stick we get. |
|
| |
Risk is everywhere, this is true, but the existence of the chance of death/personal injury whilst going about one's daily business cannot be used to justify deliberately placing people at an elevated level of risk without some consideration of the payoff resulting from taking that risk. Since the payoff here is people being entertained by watching emergency workers going about their business, I'd say it's not worth it.
You assume that the revenue generated from this scheme would find its way exclusively to the emergency services. I think it more likely that it would go into general city coffers and then be apportioned as usual, meaning that the expected increase in the level of service provided may not in fact occur.
You make an interesting point about truth but I think the cause of truth could be better served by more balanced reporting, rather than an increase in graphic images on TV. I don't suppose for a minute that Al-Jazeera offer coverage that's any more real than Fox ("We Edit Selectively, You Decide") they just have different editing criteria. |
|
| |
Having stuck with this thread to end I have to say that I'm starting to side with the good doctor, which is a shame because it's great idea. |
|
| |
As far as risk is concerned, on a practical level this is nowadays dealt with largely though litigation, which is a sorry state of affairs. The bottom line is that every time something goes wrong, the emergency services would get sued up and down the walls, waiver or no waiver. People may accept the risks involved, but the lawyers will persuade them otherwise after any accident when they put some possible compensation figures in front of them. |
|
| |
The money/service levels argument I would look at like this. Would the emergency services be willing to pay $10/hour *not* to have an observer following them about, who as doc rightly says, will influence service levels negatively in some way, even if only slightly. My guess is yes. |
|
| |
I'm still going to bun you because I would definitely do this once for each emergency service. It may be voyeuristic, but it would be a hundred times as interesting and educational as watching COPS. |
|
| |
Strictly educational, or else people will get the wrong idea.
Fun and educational, and you'll be shut down before you begin. |
|
| |
RE: Al-Jazeera -- you could start a war with that mentalitiy. |
|
| |
RE: Al-Jazeera - When I referred to an unedited version of reality I was referring to their pictures not their opinions. We get highlights of these awesome fireworks lighting up the night sky; they get pictures of the gruesome toll on the ground (although we did make an exception in Fallujah when those contracters were killed). I'm not saying Al_Jazeera's interpretration of the war is correct. Both audiences are getting censored versions of the truth, ours is just a little more censored. |
|
| |
Agreed, except for the word "both", and I don't even know where you're from.
But what's the lesson learned when emotions are involved?
Is it "War sucks," or "Fuck the enemy?" |
|
| |
It's not so much a lesson as an mind-opener. Once we've seen the pictures we can truly give our "informed consent" regarding whether we should stay there or leave (I'm in the US by the way). That's not something we can do without seeing them and experiencing all of the emotions that go with them. |
|
| |
This might be veering off a little too much into politics for this site so I'm thinking we should wander around in some of the other ideas that are here. |
|
| |
I think I hear 'Overbaked' calling gentlemen. |
|
| |