Proposal to Strengthen Cruise Passenger Safety Laws

[alfaeric]

Good luck trying to convince the true believers in mother Gaia from giving up their global warming, mankind and his tools is destroying the earth.

 

Remember these people love the expression if it save just one person isn't it worth it. To which the obvious answer is not if it means that we have to go back to a way of life that can feed about 1/10 of a billion people, who cares about the other 7.4 billion people that will have to die to go back to a sustainable world. They love that world sustainable.

 

It is like trying to convince someone that being a Baptist or a Methodist or a Catholic that they are not following the right religion (insert any religion here if those offend you... including the MMGW religion)

 

I agree with Biker 1000%

 

JC

 

So you would be ok if your neighbor dumped their oil in your back yard, then.

[Beachammo]

So you would be ok if your neighbor dumped their oil in your back yard, then.

And how does any government regulation stop that idiot from doing that??

 

Wouldn't it be quicker for me to just go over and "request" him to cease??

 

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

[alfaeric]

And how does any government regulation stop that idiot from doing that??

 

Wouldn't it be quicker for me to just go over and "request" him to cease??

 

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

Because it's against the law?

 

If they do it, they can go to jail.

 

Do you think companies will do something just because you asked them? That seems rather naive.

 

That's never happened before, and that is exactly why there are regulations. People get dumped on, company does not react, so regulations are put in place to prevent further people getting dumped on.

 

That's exactly what is happening with the increased consumer protection laws- one of the cruise companies consistently dumped on their consumers, which made the consumers mad enough to as congress to do something about it.

 

That's how it works.

[Beachammo]

Because it's against the law?

 

If they do it, they can go to jail.

 

Do you think companies will do something just because you asked them? That seems rather naive.

 

That's never happened before, and that is exactly why there are regulations. People get dumped on, company does not react, so regulations are put in place to prevent further people getting dumped on.

 

That's exactly what is happening with the increased consumer protection laws- one of the cruise companies consistently dumped on their consumers, which made the consumers mad enough to as congress to do something about it.

 

That's how it works.

In your mind....

 

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[alfaeric]

In your mind....

 

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

So, then, how does it happen?

 

In my experience, that's how it happens.

 

And if we are just going to be like that, your mom wears combat boots. done. :p

[Biker19]

[Biker19]

Do you think companies will do something just because you asked them? That seems rather naive.

Social media shaming seems to work nowadays.

[Beachammo]

So, then, how does it happen?

 

In my experience, that's how it happens.

 

And if we are just going to be like that, your mom wears combat boots. done. :p

My mom did serve in the Military.....so combat boots were a real possibility.

 

Most companies WANT to sell either a product or service to the public. They will do the right thing for that base to stay in business. No government law/regulation makes that happen.

 

BP and Exxon both spilled oil and paid the consequences from the public. They then changed the way they did business....not because of some regulation.

 

Get government out of the way and let competition force excellence.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[nealstuber]

 

And I don't get why regulations that deal with air quality are hammered just as much. We were just in the port of Tampa, and the smell of diesel and exhaust was so overwhelming, we could not be outside. And we are tourists- people actually live there. The tightening of the air quality rules is to protect their lives. Again, how is that bad?

 

.

 

 

How many cruise ships were in Tampa when you were there and how long did they have all of their generators running?

 

I worked on a tanker while it was dry dry docked there, for over a month. And have cruises and have cruises and vacationed there a couple of times...Never experienced what you did. But I seriously doubt it was from the ship itself. Maybe support equipment, tugs, fuel barges forklifts on dock, other shipping??

 

Just seems like those things would have a much greater impact on the air quality in Tampa, but doing anything about that is conspicuously absent from the proposed legislation.

 

So it just seems like the cruise industry gets picked on an awful lot vs let's say foreign flagged merchant vessels who visit our ports in much greater numbers with far older and less environmentally friendly systems on board.

 

Yes, if somebody dumps in my yard I expect that somebody to pick it up. What is happening here is somebody dumped in my yard and I'm going after the guy in the mansion down the street who already spends plenty to haul his trash, instead of taking it up with my less affluent neighbors who were more likely responsible.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[xpcdoojk]

So you would be ok if your neighbor dumped their oil in your back yard, then.

 

Ok, Biker was talking about miniscule changes when things are basically normal atmosphere and your response is the equal to dropping a nuke.

 

Proportion. The world is dirty and dangerous. Who can say that cleaning it to the infinitesimal level of clean is worth spending all of the earths resources to get there.

 

Again, the stupid statement of if it could save just one life it would be worth it.... at some point saving that life means sacrificing dozens... it is Utopian stupid thinking.... welcome to education in the 21st century. All Marx, all the time. The reds went away and they became green....

 

JC

[chengkp75]

 

And I don't get why regulations that deal with air quality are hammered just as much. We were just in the port of Tampa, and the smell of diesel and exhaust was so overwhelming, we could not be outside. And we are tourists- people actually live there. The tightening of the air quality rules is to protect their lives. Again, how is that bad?

 

I'm fine with a small increase in my cabin prices. For sure, it will be WAY smaller than if I had one or two rums on board. Big deal. If it gives me a layer of protection if something bad happens, great.

 

I'm guessing that you didn't notice whether there was a barge alongside the ship in Tampa when the smell was so bad? Typically bunkering operations tend to smell quite a bit, as the fuel is heated, hence gives off vapors, and the barges typically have all the tank hatches open during pumping. Because as the ship was within 200 miles of the US coastline, it was burning diesel fuel, not residual fuel oil, thereby reducing exhaust emissions significantly, as has been mandated for all ships since 2013.

 

If you're thinking that this new passenger safety law will result in a infinitesimal increase in your fare, you obviously haven't dealt with lawyers or insurance much, as these two industries will see a vast increase in revenue from the cruise industry as a result of their increased liability under the new law. Especially the part about the medical staff, which will open up the entire health care cost and personal injury lawsuit arena for cruise lines to deal with.

[alfaeric]

I'm guessing that you didn't notice whether there was a barge alongside the ship in Tampa when the smell was so bad? Typically bunkering operations tend to smell quite a bit, as the fuel is heated, hence gives off vapors, and the barges typically have all the tank hatches open during pumping. Because as the ship was within 200 miles of the US coastline, it was burning diesel fuel, not residual fuel oil, thereby reducing exhaust emissions significantly, as has been mandated for all ships since 2013.

 

If you're thinking that this new passenger safety law will result in a infinitesimal increase in your fare, you obviously haven't dealt with lawyers or insurance much, as these two industries will see a vast increase in revenue from the cruise industry as a result of their increased liability under the new law. Especially the part about the medical staff, which will open up the entire health care cost and personal injury lawsuit arena for cruise lines to deal with.

 

There was a barge, but it was doing construction int the port area, not refueling us. There were a few more tug boats moving things around, too. Whatever fuel it was burning, that was clearly not enough, yet.

 

Again, the only way lawyers and insurance people get money is if there are claims. If there are no claims, there is no money. So if the cruise industry reduces the incidents that produce these claims- then the cost will be minimal. Done.

 

You can either do thing the old way and pay for it in the end, or pay to do it the new way to not pay for it.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Again, the only way lawyers and insurance people get money is if there are claims. If there are no claims, there is no money. So if the cruise industry reduces the incidents that produce these claims- then the cost will be minimal. Done.

 

 

 

 

So you assume all claims are true? What about fraudulent claims? Fraudulent claims would drive up costs to the cruise line.

 

Done

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Oppalopa]

The only legislation and regulation anyone here is interested in has to do with strangers clothing, not their safety.

Good One;)

[The sea calls my name]

If you read your CRUISE CONTRACT...it states all of the "proposed" stuff. You are ON YOUR OWN when you cruise. The cruise lines have it signed, sealed and delivered. More "legislation" will not make anyone "safer"...or wiser. It will simply add to the cost of your vacation.

 

My exact reaction and thoughts . A cruise line can not control the actions of people determined to harm themselves or others ( as the case of the recent tragic death of the " laughing wife). As tragic as they all are, the "government" can not correct an unbalanced person with more legislation.

[Domino D]

Again, the only way lawyers and insurance people get money is if there are claims. If there are no claims, there is no money. So if the cruise industry reduces the incidents that produce these claims- then the cost will be minimal. Done.

 

I believe you are thinking of this only in terms of claims. As someone who works directly with lawyers for companies larger than Royal, I can tell you this is unfortunately not true. For a large company, cost is associated to risk, or liability. The new provisions are not about making anyone safer, they are an attempt to increase the cruise lines' legal responsibility for what happens on a cruise.

 

Whether you or I agree that they should be responsible, we can not argue that if they are legally more responsible, they are more liable. If they are more liable, their insurance premiums will increase. Premiums are not related to claims, they are governed by projected claims. When we assess This is why people with pre-existing conditions have a problem getting affordable health insurance. Same holds true here. Their insurance premiums will go up. Their legal department will begin assessing additional exposure, and try to come up with policies to offset it as much as possible. If you require them to provide more heath care, you may see a company take a run at not allowing cruisers with certain pre-existing conditions. I am talking things like high blood pressure, or diabetes. They could also assess a "Health Care" fee to pass the cost along.

 

The argument in favor of regulations can not be based on cost, it will cost more if these are enacted. However, to not enact changes based solely on cost is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Many of the proposed regulations would not cost the companies anything, and do not significantly impact their liability, in fact they seem pretty obvious.

 

My exact reaction and thoughts . A cruise line can not control the actions of people determined to harm themselves or others ( as the case of the recent tragic death of the " laughing wife). As tragic as they all are, the "government" can not correct an unbalanced person with more legislation.

 

While I don't disagree with the idea that neither the "government" nor the "cruise line" can correct an imbalanced person, the regulations are not about prevention, they are about what to do when something happens.

 

In the case you mention, are you opposed to the cruise line being required to:

 

 

Ensure a cruise vessel owner notifies the FBI within four hours of an alleged incident.

 

Ensure that if an alleged incident occurs while the vessel is still in a U.S. port, the FBI is notified before that vessel leaves the port.

 

Require vessel owners to also report an alleged offense to the U.S. Consulate in the next port of call, if the alleged offense is by or against a U.S. national.

 

Ensure that should a U.S. passenger die aboard a vessel,his or her next of kin could request the vessel to return the deceased back to the United States.

 

To me this is always the complexity in regulations. I agree that if we look at the ones I left out, cost of cruising is going to increase. The one's I listed are things the government should try to enact on our behalf. To me they are common sense, and I don't know why anyone would oppose them. Turning this into a discussion about diesel engines and air pollution is interesting, but pulls us way off the proposed regulations. I am very open to being wrong.

[Biker19]

I

 

Ensure a cruise vessel owner notifies the FBI within four hours of an alleged incident.

 

Ensure that if an alleged incident occurs while the vessel is still in a U.S. port, the FBI is notified before that vessel leaves the port.

 

Require vessel owners to also report an alleged offense to the U.S. Consulate in the next port of call, if the alleged offense is by or against a U.S. national.

 

Ensure that should a U.S. passenger die aboard a vessel,his or her next of kin could request the vessel to return the deceased back to the United States.

 

The one's I listed are things the government should try to enact on our behalf. To me they are common sense, and I don't know why anyone would oppose them.

 

All or most of those already happen.

[DirtyDawg]

For my American friends out there, how much political clout does the cruise industry really have to fight this type of legislation? Cruisers make up only a fraction of the electorate. The industry doesn't employee many Americans. And they don't pay much income taxes to the U.S. treasury compared to other industries.

[The sea calls my name]

All or most of those already happen.

 

Thank you, Why I did not refer to them in my post.

[Milwaukee Eight]

i believe you are thinking of this only in terms of claims. As someone who works directly with lawyers for companies larger than royal, i can tell you this is unfortunately not true. For a large company, cost is associated to risk, or liability. The new provisions are not about making anyone safer, they are an attempt to increase the cruise lines' legal responsibility for what happens on a cruise.

 

Whether you or i agree that they should be responsible, we can not argue that if they are legally more responsible, they are more liable. If they are more liable, their insurance premiums will increase. Premiums are not related to claims, they are governed by projected claims. When we assess this is why people with pre-existing conditions have a problem getting affordable health insurance. Same holds true here. Their insurance premiums will go up. Their legal department will begin assessing additional exposure, and try to come up with policies to offset it as much as possible. If you require them to provide more heath care, you may see a company take a run at not allowing cruisers with certain pre-existing conditions. I am talking things like high blood pressure, or diabetes. They could also assess a "health care" fee to pass the cost along.

 

The argument in favor of regulations can not be based on cost, it will cost more if these are enacted. However, to not enact changes based solely on cost is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Many of the proposed regulations would not cost the companies anything, and do not significantly impact their liability, in fact they seem pretty obvious.

 

 

 

While i don't disagree with the idea that neither the "government" nor the "cruise line" can correct an imbalanced person, the regulations are not about prevention, they are about what to do when something happens.

 

In the case you mention, are you opposed to the cruise line being required to:

 

 

Ensure a cruise vessel owner notifies the fbi within four hours of an alleged incident.

 

Ensure that if an alleged incident occurs while the vessel is still in a u.s. Port, the fbi is notified before that vessel leaves the port.

 

Require vessel owners to also report an alleged offense to the u.s. Consulate in the next port of call, if the alleged offense is by or against a u.s. National.

 

Ensure that should a u.s. Passenger die aboard a vessel,his or her next of kin could request the vessel to return the deceased back to the united states.

 

To me this is always the complexity in regulations. I agree that if we look at the ones i left out, cost of cruising is going to increase. The one's i listed are things the government should try to enact on our behalf. To me they are common sense, and i don't know why anyone would oppose them. Turning this into a discussion about diesel engines and air pollution is interesting, but pulls us way off the proposed regulations. I am very open to being wrong.

 

+1^