Hacker News Reader

Comment by katastic | Hacker News Reader

Not to mention the _costs_ to society/economy to rescue risk-takers every time they get stranded or injured.

Frankly, if a rescuer takes some risks climbing a crane to rescue someone, then he shouldn't do it. I don't get it when people say: "he's putting rescuers at risks by getting stuck here". Climbing a crane is not complicated. Anyone with climbing and rope work can safely climb and rescue someone up there.

I would fine a world where all risks are forbidden to be very sad. I've climbed plenty of cranes and rope-swinged many bridges and viaducts. Of course it's illegal, but for me that's what brings pleasure to my life. Of course I could fall and pancake on the floor. Of course that'll cost the society. But I work, and I cycle instead of driving to work, so I suppose that I would cost the same in average.

You can ask a passerby of any of your activities if they want to be put at risk just because you are swinging from a crane, let's see if that compares with the same answer when you ask them if they want to take the risk of living in a city with car smoke. It is just not the same.

If I was a passerby I'd say hell yeah I want to watch. And I definitely don't want to live in a smelly polluted city.

In general, passerbys start taking photos and videos. Crane are situated in construction sites (I only go during the night or during the weekends), so if we crash, we'll only kill some ants.

As for the bridges and viaducts, there's either a river underneath (some fish may be harmed), or a plain forest.

So no, no passerby is "put at risk". The risk is very low. It seems dangerous swinging from a crane, but the gear is meant for that. Driving to work is way more dangerous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com