Saw this on Fark:

Dead tourist

Guy walks away from a vehicle containing water and survival supplies. In a desert.

One does not want to say this person deserved to die, but he was, well, an idiot.

Many years ago, in a weekly newspaper called The Sunday Post, there was a regular column by a reporter known as The Hon Man. (Nobody ever figured out where he got the name, as far as I know.) One year, he went around the world interviewing ex-pat Scots. He wrote an article about his experience in Australia - again, driving to Alice Springs, but I believe he was westbound, not eastbound. About half-way there, he passed an 18-wheeler; a few hours later, his rental car engine overheated and died. Figuring there was no point in walking to Alice Springs (which was still several hours by car) and no point in walking back (as he'd been driving for several hours) he struck out cross country. After about 45 minutes, he heard voices, walked toward them, and hailed them, quite unaware that he was doing anything out of the ordinary. The ranchers, who were probably the only other human beings within 60 miles, read him the riot act and gave him some no-nonsense lectures about traveling in the desert.

The problem, I think, is that to most people from Britain, or Europe, the concept of being able to walk for an hour in any direction without encountering civilisation is more or less inconceivable. They've grown up thinking that being 5 miles from the nearest town is the back of beyond. I agree with the police sergeant who is calling for hire car agencies to provide mandatory instructions to foreign tourists in the event of breakdowns. It's too simple to chalk this up to one exceptionally stupid person; agencies whose stock-in-trade is dealing with foreign tourists have (IMO) a responsibility to understand cultural differences and how those could end up endangering their customers.

Yes, it may seem obvious to us that, if you're travelling to a foreign country, you should familiarize yourself with the local hazards, but that's not always as easy as it sounds, and in any event, the vast majority of people don't spend a great deal of time thinking about "worst case scenarios and how to handle them", as we've seen.

To take one example, a co-worker and I attended a security training conference in Baltimore some years back. There was an overhead pedestrian walkway from the rear of our hotel to the conference centre. The evening session finished rather late (it was dark, anyway) and we walked back to the hotel via the walkway. About halfway, we started feeling very uneasy - at the time, Baltimore had (I think) a fairly high crime rate, and here were we, a couple of stupid Canadian tourists, merrily walking along an unlighted overhead path with no way off except forward or back. We would have been easy pickings for any muggers who needed a quick score. But being from Canada, and moreover from a part of Canada with a rather low crime rate (at that time, anyway), we didn't think anything of it until we were at the point of "Oh s**t, maybe this wasn't such a good idea". (For those who are interested, we continued on to the hotel without incident; presumably, the reputation for street crime in US cities was exaggerated in our minds. But there's no doubt that the locals avoided unlit, empty pathways at that hour of the night and took the long way around, by the well-lighted, well-travelled main street.)

I was going to make a flip comment about another Darwin Award, but I think Aardwolfe did a much better job of putting my reaction to this sad story into words. The only thing I can add is that none of us will ever know what thought processes ran through this man’s mind before he struck out on his own – to him, his course of action probably seems rational at the time. I hope that everyone who reads this takes away a good lesson about surviving, be it remaining with your vehicle, having enough stuff to keep you alive, the knowledge or training to get you out of a tough spot, etc. I’m sorry this guy had to go this way, it’s a crappy way to die, but if the Australian authorities tighten up the requirements for what tourists have to be told, maybe his death will not have been completely in vain.

Putting more regulations on business owners to tell people not to be stupid. Great, just what the world needs is more government intrusion and nanny rules.

What ever happened to self responsibility? If you are going to be a world traveler, it is your responsibility to find out about the area before you dive in. If you don't, you will pay the consequences. Austrailia is known for being a wild and largely uninhabited island.

I am sorry that his person perished due to his own ignorance. But being ignorant is a crime punishable by consequences. The vehicle rental agency apparently stocked the vehicle with adequate supplies. The user choose not to use them and paid with his life.

Travelers have injured themselves and died since the beginning of time. Travel is inherently danagerous because you are going to areas you are unfamiliar. What may be considered normal knowledge by locals is unknown to the traveler.

I visisted New York City a few years back. Went to dinner in China town and decieded to walk back uptown to my hotel. For a while the sites, hustle and bustle of the city were exciting. At some point I looked up and determined I was in a part of town with no street lights, people lurking around in the shadows and kind of a warehouse rundown area. Flagged a cab and got out of the their pronto. Got lucky that no one bothered the tourist. Live and learn.

ignorance is often fatal. Don't have to be a tourist to prove this. Don't have to be in exceptionally strenous circumstances to prove this either. The ignorance of the todler walking in traffic can be fatal - The toddler is considered juvenille and so others are blamed by the death ensuing the ignorance. The ignorance of the cyclist not wearing his helmet may be fatal. The cyclist is considered adult and so we don't blame others for his death as he attempts to put his head through a telephone pole at > 60 miles an hour. I don't think that it helps to try to make others responsable for the ignorance of an adult. If the information is available and the supplies are available then the reasonably wise adult will take responsability and care for themselves. The less wise will not. If the gov't puts more regulations on what business must or mustn't do to prevent the ignorant from killing themselves it only makes life harder on businesses. It does little or nothing to keep the ignorant alive. Let's presuppose that the Govt requires the rental agent to provide a written list of instructions and a stern speach before the ignorant adult is allowed to drive off in the rental car. Is that ignorant individual who was not wise enough to have researched this information for themselves any more likely to listen to the stern speach or to read the list of instructions. Are they any more likely to take out and read those instructions then they were to pickup one of the water bottles and carry it with them as they walk out into the desert? The flaw is thinking that you can impart wisdom to the unwise. You can instruct, cajole, supply and unwise individual but they will remain unwise and ignorant and those are the fatal characteristics. Meanwhile as you make these annoying behaviors legal mandates you make the lives of everyone else more difficult and annoying. You do actually generate more jobs for bearuocrats and enforcement officers so it may be good for someone.

It's been a while since I've rented a car. But I recall the vendor providing a short instruction sheet. Included on the list was instructions that one should get familiar with the location and nature of the auto's mechanisms (light switches, wipers, etc.) I naturally do this now as part of a routine.

Without knowing the particulars of the rental company's procedure, it's entirely possible that they didn't even offer this basic level instructions. What if the driver did not even know there was water in the car? A short paragraph on what to do in case of a breakdown in the dessert could save lives and is not unreasonable to require car rental companies in the area to include some sort of information in advance of releasing the vehicle.

I find it odd how we can suggest putting a cheat sheet in our PSK with the though, in part, that we may be unconscious and an ignorant stranger may be able to follow some simple instructions to save opur lives. But then resist the notion that governments should regulate a sector of business to do the same. Plus we are quick to judge the poor sole who was too ingnorant to know better to stay with the car. The fact is, we are all ignorant on certain matters. We strive to educate ourselves in ways to equip ourselves to survive, both with equipment and with knowledge. This poor sole obviously did not. Frankly, with the gear restrictions associated with travel these days, I would appreciate a significant survival kit in a rental car along with instructions on how and when the kit should be used, especially in a vast ocean of sand (a.k.a., dessert). In some respects, it's not too different from requiring life boats and related equipment on boats.

Folks,

I just want to point out that this guy may have had some pre-existing medical or mental condition which rendered him incapable of making a rational decision (OK, pundits, don't tell me his condition was stupidity!!!) at a very critical time.

Maybe he had a diabetic incident -- a seizure and was disoriented afterward -- a TIA -- heck, I don't know, I'm not a doc.

Has there ben any follow-up to this case? Autopsy results or something?

I have to believe that "someone" in the past was saved by the supplies found in these rental vehicles. No doubt we will never hear about those stories.
Nothing wrong with a rental agency going through a checklist for this type of rental. Perhaps that is standard procedure and it just did not happen in this case.
Then again, we may not know the whole story.

[POLITICAL SOAP BOX]

There is little doubt that you can save lives by preaching to and supplying individuals with preparations that they might not have had the opportunity or foresight to do themselves. There is no harm in an individual business providing such a service for it's customers and it even may be a competitive advantage for them showing the greater concern for their customers. OTOH, there is great harm to society in general when the government takes over the role of protecting adults from their own lack of wisdom. The government cannot become involved in any but a "least common denominator" manner and this often ends up being either prohibitivly expensive (for the taxpayer or the regulated business or both) or it shows up as prohibitions on certain activities (an imposition on our privacy and a limitation on our liberties). Perhaps worse, by making it something that is under the legal review of the govt you fuel the cycle of litigation in a new arena making lawyers and insurance agents a fortune and picking the pocket of all citizens on three tiers - first as taxpayers to pay for the enforcement and justice aspects of the new regulations, second as customers forced to buy an artificially inflated product that was more expensive in order to meet the imposed regulations, third as participants in activities for which they now have to pay insurance costs. Whether they are required to buy the insurance or to pay inflated costs for lisencing of others who accept the insurance costs. All of this because some very small minority of individuals are not wise enough to take responsibility for themselves and the society accepts the illogic that it is rightly the responsibility of the society to prevent the natural consequences from catching up with the foolish.

Mind you, I don't like the fact that people die unnecessarily due to their own foolishness. I feel compassion for them and I pray that none of my family will have to pay those consequences (most of them are quite unprepared). I simply feel that liberty is bought with responsiblity. You have both or neither but it is impossible to have liberty without responsibility. and it is unjust to force others to take responsibilty for the consequences of you exercising your liberty. I would prefer a society of liberty rather than a society of safety. I would prefer a society where individuals are allowed to suffer the consequences of exercising their freedom the the opportunity of challenging thier boundaries and experiencing great successes.

[b][/POLITICAL SOAP BOX][\b]