Every day we read in the social media about people who die when they are taking selfies.
In many cases that would be redundant, since "bans" (signage) are already in place warning people not to enter certain locations. Taking selfies in such locations is just a special case of trespassing into prohibited areas. What the government should do, however, in addition to the usual fines, is make violators pay the full cost of any rescue operations.
In many cases that would be redundant, since "bans" (signage) are already in place warning people not to enter certain locations. Taking selfies in such locations is just a special case of trespassing into prohibited areas. What the government should do, however, in addition to the usual fines, is make violators pay the full cost of any rescue operations.
Karl Pfeifer Since the violators are dead, do we charge the fines to the nearest family members?
Nearest family members are not directly or indirectly responsible for the incidents ,so thinks no more suffering to be given to already lost important members of family
Joseph Tham RE: "Since the violators are dead, do we charge the fines to the nearest family members?"
Surely, not all the violators will be dead. Only some of them, such as those we read about in social media. Fines can be cancelled, but costs incurred in rescue attempts or body recovery could be charged against the estate of the deceased like any other debt.
I also think that such regulations are already existing; maybe not comprehensive, but taking selfies while driving is a´surely not allowed; one issue is to define "Dangerous Place". I am doing research about dangerous places in connection to climate change, and I have to say that there is very little that can tell us, what a dangerous place is. However I think that in concrete situations people should be able to make an assessment, if a particular place is dangerous.
Some places are uncontroversially dangerous and you don't need a special story to explain why. Some skiers venture into avalanche areas, even taking selfies that include the warning signs. For the sake of a photo, some people stupidly climb over or onto fencing (with warning signage) erected for the purpose of preventing people from getting too close to a precipice or water hazard; here's one example:
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/niagara-falls-search-for-woman-scaled-back-1.1005934
How about mountain climbing? Or rock climbing? All the people lining up to climb Mount Everest?
Mount Everest is an interesting case. It is a major benefit to the country's economy, so the gov't is willing to bear minor associated costs. But those who die on the upper reaches are generally left there; the trail is littered with dead bodies. There are no rescue or body recovery costs because it's just too dangerous. It's an extreme sport where the risks are accepted.
In North America sanctioned mountain climbing or rock climbing contributes to local economies, and certain risks with their associated potential costs are accepted as the cost of "doing business". However, not all locations (or categories of sportspeople for that matter) are sanctioned because of the higher associated risks, and so costs incurred by violations of sanctions could be deemed unacceptable as a cost of doing business, and such costs could potentially be recovered. It's a matter of cost-benefit analysis plus politics.
It was hard to implement an in-house ban on taking selfies in classrooms.
Kaukab Abid Azhar Classrooms are not dangerous places. Please explain your answer.
yes the government should ban that activities because we have the duties to avoid such accidents
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Social Media