'Safety' in numbers?

[Southwind17]

Reading a recent new post prompted me to seek members' views on a question that I've harboured for some time:

Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves?

I can understand it with natural disasters, such as tsunami, where entire communities' infrastructure might be wiped out or severely disrupted, but what about air disasters, for example? To my mind, each person involved in such an event is individually affected, essentially to the mutual exclusion of the others. The suffering and trauma amongst the victims isn't cumulative, so, as cold and macabre as it might sound, 250 deaths really is no different from just one, certainly from the victim's(s') point of view.

It always seems unfair to me when you hear about accidents involving small numbers of people to realize that if many more had been involved there probably would have been some compensation offered automatically.

Is there an implied 'head-count' threshold above which a 'disaster' takes on a different meaning?

 

[fuelair]

Time and quantity of media coverage.

 

[shemp]

Reading a recent new post prompted me to seek members' views on a question that I've harboured for some time:

Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves?

I can understand it with natural disasters, such as tsunami, where entire communities' infrastructure might be wiped out or severely disrupted, but what about air disasters, for example? To my mind, each person involved in such an event is individually affected, essentially to the mutual exclusion of the others. The suffering and trauma amongst the victims isn't cumulative, so, as cold and macabre as it might sound, 250 deaths really is no different from just one, certainly from the victim's(s') point of view.

It always seems unfair to me when you hear about accidents involving small numbers of people to realize that if many more had been involved there probably would have been some compensation offered automatically.

Is there an implied 'head-count' threshold above which a 'disaster' takes on a different meaning?

42

 

[tkingdoll]

As far as the public go, if a death is sudden and unexpected (and particularly if it is violent), then there is usually a collection by the local community. This is commonplace.

But for air disasters, etc, does the government give financial aid? Unless it involves a criminal act (e.g. terrorism) then I'm not sure the govt. gives the families any aid...?

Yes, there is probably an official death toll which is considered a 'disaster'.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

As far as the public go, if a death is sudden and unexpected (and particularly if it is violent), then there is usually a collection by the local community. This is commonplace.

But for air disasters, etc, does the government give financial aid? Unless it involves a criminal act (e.g. terrorism) then I'm not sure the govt. gives the families any aid...?

Yes, there is probably an official death toll which is considered a 'disaster'.

(Number Killed/Number Wounded) X (1/Skin Tone) X (Median Household Income) X (1/Number of Days Left Until Election) = Compensation Value.

Regardless, the politicans and NGO's will "send relief to the afflicted families," or the "families of those affected." It's a little known fact that single people never suffer from disaster.

 

[tkingdoll]

(Number Killed/Number Wounded) X (1/Skin Tone) X (Median Household Income) X (1/Number of Days Left Until Election) = Compensation Value.

Regardless, the politicans and NGO's will "send relief to the afflicted families," or the "families of those affected." It's a little known fact that single people never suffer from disaster.

In the UK we have a Criminal Compensation Board, families will (eventually) get a payout depending on the lost income resulting from the death. What is interesting is that there doesn't need to be a criminal conviction for them to pay out.

But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint

That's what I said when I heard it on the News too.

BTW, I probably used to drive past your house when I was working in Hall Green designing bombs.

 

[Southwind17]

But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint

Off-thread a little, but it's issues like this that contributed to my decision to leave the UK!

 

[tkingdoll]

That's what I said when I heard it on the News too.

BTW, I probably used to drive past your house when I was working in Hall Green designing bombs.

My office is in Hall Green. I can't believe you flouted the 'no commies' local by-law there!

Jasper Carrott, whom I usually dislike, made a great joke about Hall Green at a recent(ish) gig at the NEC. Some latecomers who unfortunately had front row seats arrived and he asked them where they live. They replied 'Hall Green', to which he said "ooh, there are some nice houses in Hall Green. Do you live near any of them?".

I only know this cause I saw it on YouTube whilst searching for something else. I don't want anyone to think I've been to a Jasper Carrott gig.

[/derail]

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is it that when a large number of people are maimed or killed in an accident the applicable Government(s) and or the general public usually rally round and organize/provide financial aid or compensation for the loss, but when it's a small number of people they generally have to fend for themselves?

Votes.

 

[Puppycow]

But now I think about it, the govt. does make arbitrary payments. I remember being cross last year because the govt. was going to give financial aid to people whose homes were damaged during the Moseley (where I live) tornado, where those people didn't have buildings insurance. The people who did have buildings insurance got no payout. I don't see why neglecting to buy insurance (which is mandatory in the case of most mortgages) should be rewarded. One excuse was that buildings insurance is not Sharia complaint

How big was the payout, though? Full compensation equal to those who had insurance?

In any case, this is an example of moral hazard. The same thing happens regularly with flood insurance in the US. Which, of course, means that you would be a sucker to buy flood insurance.

This is a trade-off of living in a welfare state. The government bails people out even if their own choices led to their predicament.

Re the OP: I've noticed that too. I guess it's more evidence that the world isn't fair.