Proposal to Strengthen Cruise Passenger Safety Laws

[BND]

We have been on 22 cruises and have never had a death (besides possibly age related natural one) while onboard or during any excursion. We've also seen multiple security crew walking about (especially on cruises where there are a lot of kids). I still say, the number of deaths, injuries, etc both aboard and on excursions is very, very low. The real problem is individuals who think either that rules don't apply to them or do something really stupid and then want to blame someone else. Just like anything else that people do, vacations come with the responsibility of buyer beware. Know your rights and know the risks and accept responsibility for things you choose to do. When I said in my previous post that the majority of deaths were suicide, I left out the fact that a lot of people who are old cruise and some of those are going to die of natural causes. Has anyone bothered to check the stats on people who go on land based vacations and drown, fall off a cliff, crash a car, etc? I don't think the numbers on cruises are higher, they're just more widely publicized by people who have no perspective.

[bUU]

<snip>

I'm going to refer both of you back to the OP of this thread so you can re-familiarize yourself with what this thread is about. It isn't about protecting a passenger from being robbed by another passenger. It is about protecting a passenger from failure of the cruise line to take appropriate measures to keep the passenger safe.

[Biker19]

In the context of this thread, we are talking about the safety of the passengers - I hope you don't mean that one needs land based cops to keep them safe on board the ship from RCI and that the security officers on board won't do?

[bUU]

Sorry but I don't trust RCI security to police RCI staff and crew negligence. You are welcome to trust the cruise line to police itself. I'll continue to prefer regulations and regulatory agencies do that.

[wolfganghowell]

You can refer me where you like. My reading comprehension is quite advanced. I don't require your assistance. Thanks.

 

My opinion is different than yours. We don't need more regulations. Most of us seem to be quite safe onboard and feel protected from the big scary cruise line.

[Biker19]

Sorry but I don't trust RCI security to police RCI staff and crew negligence.

That's very fair, but to say that there's no "police" presence on the ship or that it's unsafe because they don't have "official" police is a bit of a stretch.

 

Biker, who thinks there are some places in inner cities where the local population may prefer the cruise line security officers than the actual police.:cool:

[bUU]

We don't need more regulations.

I suspect this colors your perspective.

 

Most of us seem to be quite safe onboard and feel protected from the big scary cruise line.

Most of us don't leave a cruise ship by medical evacuation. So your "logic" flies in the face of cruise insurance.

 

As much as I support regulations to protect passengers on cruises as they would be protected on land, I support even more consistency in perspective and so I hope you're not one who opposes regulations until "it happens to you" and then suddenly you change your mind and criticize government for not doing its job.

[wolfganghowell]

I meant specifically more regulations by the government regarding cruise ships. I actually work in an industry that requested regulation by the state so that the legit companies were not associated with the scammers. My perspective is just fine. I'm sure your life experiences color your perspective as well. I've noticed by your various posts that you interpret others as you please and seem to enjoy picking fights with other posters. My logic is fine with me. So is my cruise insurance.

 

Geez we really need a picture of Bella right now. Because it looks like thread will get shut down soon too.

[bUU]

I meant specifically more regulations by the government regarding cruise ships

So did I. Well actually, this isn't even a regulation. As I mentioned above, negligence is a tort. What we're talking about is eliminating the artificial barriers that government erected that prevent the negligent from being held responsible for their negligence.

 

I'm sure your life experiences color your perspective as well.

Without a doubt. In my job I saw numerous examples of how inadequate regulations and inadequate enforcement of regulations adversely affect purchasers. And we have all seen how the little guy is often batted around by large companies. When it is the law it is the law, but changing the law so that the playing field is a big more level is a worthwhile change to make.

[Milwaukee Eight]

"Many cruise ships are the size of small towns - butwith few emergency services and no law enforcement, these vessels are more WildWest than Atlantis," said Blumenthal.

 

 

 

In my opinion this is quite an overstatement. Cruise ships are safer (from a crime standpoint) than many American inner cities. I live in Los Angeles so I do have a frame of reference about this.

 

 

 

Blumenthal lied about his service to get elected. You support this type of behavior (not you)?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

Sorry but I don't trust RCI security to police RCI staff and crew negligence. You are welcome to trust the cruise line to police itself. I'll continue to prefer regulations and regulatory agencies do that.

 

 

 

I can police myself quite well and don't need our Government Treading On Me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Capt_BJ]

if this change had been implemented a year ago

 

the current administration would repeal it and proclaim a major victory against false news

[bUU]

I can police myself quite well

What cruise line do you own?

 

You definitely have me wondering if you are actually reading the posts that you are replying to.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Milwaukee Eight]

And we have all seen how the little guy is often batted around by large companies. When it is the law it is the law, but changing the law so that the playing field is a big more level is a worthwhile change to make.

 

 

 

So, I YOUR OPINION, just who is the "Little guy"?

 

So, who do you propose pays for this additional regulation? We recently traveled DC and saw all the GOVERNMENT building going on. The Government grew more in the last 8 years. You want Government growth? IMHO, we need to decrease GOVERNMENT control over US. We will be just fine.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

So, I YOUR OPINION, just who is the "Little guy"?

 

Passengers = little guy

 

Cruise Lines = corporations

 

You are welcome to trust the cruise line to police itself. I'll continue to prefer regulations and regulatory agencies do that.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Passengers = little guy

 

Cruise Lines = corporations

 

You are welcome to trust the cruise line to police itself. I'll continue to prefer regulations and regulatory agencies do that.

 

 

 

No, I am welcome to TRUST ME. Don't need anymore interference from big brother to take care of me/us. We take care of ourselves quite well. Thank you.

 

What is wrong with Corporations? Don't they hire people? Do you depend on our Government to take care of you? We don't...

 

I will say again, I fought for this right to express our views without calling names, blocking roads, and destruction of property.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited July 14, 2017 by Milwaukee Eight

[bUU]

No, I am welcome to TRUST ME.

If you don't own a cruise line then your comment is gibberish in context.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Milwaukee Eight]

If you don't own a cruise line then your comment is gibberish in context.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

 

 

Read my edited post.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

Read my earlier posts.

[chengkp75]

Paul;

 

Couple questions for you, as I know of your CG connections, but not as a lawyer, so you may not know this.

 

It is my understanding that the Passenger Bill of Rights was voluntarily adopted by CLIA when asked by Congress, since Congress knew they had no authority to regulate this. Also, it is my understanding that the some of the provisions of the Passenger Vessel Safety and Security Act only apply to US flag ships, like the requirement for man overboard systems. I could be wrong on this, but that is my understanding.

 

As for the argument about extraterritorial jurisdiction, I don't think that holds water. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and BUU seems to be, but my reading of extraterritorial jurisdiction says that it must be agreed to by both parties (the country claiming jurisdiction outside its boundaries, and the agency governing that area). Since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is the recognized agency governing the open seas, any action by the US (which is one of only 4 maritime nations not signatory to the Convention) could be challenged in international court. The US does recognize UNCLOS as a "codification of customary international law".

[Milwaukee Eight]

If you don't own a cruise line then your comment is gibberish in context.

 

 

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

 

 

And I didn't say your msg was gibberish. I said you had the right to express yourself in a diplomatic manner. I thought I had that right as well. I guess if you don't like what I had to say, you call it gibberish??

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

... my reading of extraterritorial jurisdiction says that it must be agreed to by both parties ...

False. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is when a country asserts its laws beyond it's own boundaries. The example I gave earlier was a company that engaged in bribery in a country within which it is tacitly permitted and the government has no interest in letting the United States assert its laws. Yet of course in this example United States did assert its laws and applied sanctions because it was in position to do so due to the assets it had the ability to attach within the United States itself.

 

And I didn't say your msg was gibberish. I said you had the right to express yourself in a diplomatic manner. I thought I had that right as well. I guess if you don't like what I had to say, you call it gibberish??

No. Gibberish is posting that you "trust yourself" in response to me calling for greater protection for passengers from malfeasance by cruise lines. It is almost as if you're not even remotely interested in the topic of the thread but really just interested in spewing a reactionary political perspective. Edited July 15, 2017 by bUU

[Milwaukee Eight]

No. It's gibberish when you post that you "trust yourself" in response to me calling for greater protection for passengers from malfeasance by cruise lines. It is almost as if you're not even remotely interested in the topic of the thread but really just interested in spewing a reactionary political perspective.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

 

 

I'm just saying I don't need Government to protect me. It seems you need them to watch out for you? I don't know how else to interpret it? You don't seem to like business or "big" business. I'm a stock holder in RCCL and like all our holdings to be profitable. Nothing political about this.

 

If power strips are prohibited because they may cause a fire, we don't try to bring them aboard.

 

From my reading of the incident in April 2016 where the couple from Alabama died in an in cabin fire/smoke caused by a PROHIBITED power strip, why should any cruise operator be libel?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited July 15, 2017 by Milwaukee Eight

[bUU]

I'm just saying I don't need Government to protect me.

Many Americans do appreciate the protection that the United States government affords its citizens. Your personal preference is not a legitimate basis for depriving everyone else. Beyond that, you have no way to prove that you won't change the tune your singing when you happen to be in a situation within which you need the protection of the United States government. It is easy to talk big when you are not facing a current risk.

 

As it is, what we are discussing is the difference between the protection the somebody has while the ship is tied down in Port Canaveral versus when it is at sea during the cruise. If we were to poll the passengers aboard the ship I doubt anything close to half would expect such a radical difference in protection between the beginning of their trip in the middle of their trip. It simply makes no sense.

 

I know you want to get the last word. Have at it. We're just going around in circles now.

Edited July 15, 2017 by bUU

[John&LaLa]

I meant specifically more regulations by the government regarding cruise ships. I actually work in an industry that requested regulation by the state so that the legit companies were not associated with the scammers. My perspective is just fine. I'm sure your life experiences color your perspective as well. I've noticed by your various posts that you interpret others as you please and seem to enjoy picking fights with other posters. My logic is fine with me. So is my cruise insurance.

 

Geez we really need a picture of Bella right now. Because it looks like thread will get shut down soon too.

Just back from groomers.

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Forums mobile app