View Full Version : Get lost in New Hampshire, lose your license?
Darwin again
02-25-2008, 10:47
New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers
Hikers who get lost in New Hampshire could have their driving license suspended.
Link: (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp
A snippet:
"Motorists with a bad sense of direction could lose their license in New Hampshire even if they leave their car at home. A bill making its way through the state legislature would suspend the driver's license of anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees imposed for a rescue operation. State Representative David H. Kidder (R-New London) introduced the measure to help the state government collect more money from hikers who are not adequately prepared for the conditions."
You mean get spanked for not paying your bills.
wtmntcaretaker
02-25-2008, 10:53
legal mumbo jumbo always sounds a little harsh to me, but over all that doesn't sound to bad.
BarFight
02-25-2008, 10:55
This would be in response to the large number of winter rescues that have so far occured this year in the White Mountains. Deaths, several people helicoptered off Franconia Ridge, more people getting lost, etc. Most of these people were not properly outfitted and/or didn't turn around when conditions deteriorated. The state already can charge for the rescue in some cases, but however they worded the law actually makes collecting hard. People are p.o.'s enough that they're trying to come up with easier ways to punish people for stupidity. I doubt anything will actually come of this.
wtmntcaretaker
02-25-2008, 10:59
I doubt anything will actually come of this.
I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if it passed. NH is usually easy to persuade when it comes to charging visitors for almost anything.
Darwin again
02-25-2008, 11:02
Business licenses could be lost, too. I wonder, does that include the AMC?
"Such hikers already can be billed up to $10,000 for "recklessly" becoming lost under a law that took effect in 1999. The new legislative proposal would lower that standard to "negligently" and allow suspension not only of a driver's license but the business license of any corporation involved in the hike."
Alligator
02-25-2008, 11:03
Dumb idea. Just garnish the person's wages if they must. Taking away someone's drivers license only makes it more likely that they will be unable to work and make money.
warraghiyagey
02-25-2008, 11:07
I'm sure the Dept. of Tourism PR person is busy today.
Darwin again
02-25-2008, 11:11
Is there a lot of corporate sponsorship of "negligent" hikers?
I know lawyers like to go after deep pockets, but that seems odd.
Darwin again
02-25-2008, 11:12
I imagine that's probably to punish guides, guide services or outfitters who screw up?
wrongway_08
02-25-2008, 11:19
Dumb idea. Just garnish the person's wages if they must. Taking away someone's drivers license only makes it more likely that they will be unable to work and make money.
Yup. Wonder how much money they are wasting on tryn to pass this?
They say if a person is heading without the proper gear and what not, they might have to pay. I wonder what happens if say,
- I plan a 4 day trip
- 3 days into it weather turns to total crap
- I decide to just wait it out, bunker down and sit for 2 days untill the storm passes. No phone, the storm wont allow it.
- Now it takes me 2 more days to finish the last scheduled day of hiking due to snow fall/ice. cloud cover still blocking phone calls.
- total time out would be 7 days. But I am fine and was ready for this possibility.
- The rescue team is sent out on day 6, they find me and I let them know all is good, I'll finish the route as plan.
Would they still charge for this..not just in the above case but for a normal rescue? Just wondering.
warraghiyagey
02-25-2008, 11:22
Yup. Wonder how much money they are wasting on tryn to pass this?
They say if a person is heading without the proper gear and what not, they might have to pay. I wonder what happens if say,
- I plan a 4 day trip
- 3 days into it weather turns to total crap
- I decide to just wait it out, bunker down and sit for 2 days untill the storm passes. No phone, the storm wont allow it.
- Now it takes me 2 more days to finish the last scheduled day of hiking due to snow fall/ice. cloud cover still blocking phone calls.
- total time out would be 7 days. But I am fine and was ready for this possibility.
- The rescue team is sent out on day 6, they find me and I let them know all is good, I'll finish the route as plan.
Would they still charge for this..not just in the above case but for a normal rescue? Just wondering.
Ahhh. . . . the proverbial can of worms has been opened. Good question WW8.
wtmntcaretaker
02-25-2008, 11:24
But I am fine and was ready for this possibility
that is the defining thing. if you are ready than fine but if you are a weekend warrior in over your head, that is something different. they are taking about "reckless" or "negligent" hikers. not people who are prepared and just get into a bad situation.
dessertrat
02-25-2008, 12:32
It sounds to me like it will be more expensive to enforce than it will be worth, and will open up all kinds of wormcans.
They should also charge people who set their houses or cars on fire negligently, then.
This could have the unintended consequence of people not calling for help, for fear of losing ones license.
Hikerhead
02-25-2008, 13:55
This is BS...This will cause more people to hesitate on calling for a rescue and potentially cause more people to die on the mtn. Somebody needs to wake up.
They should take note of how colorado handles this situation. I believe it's 5 bucks/person for multi year permit which covers the cost of being rescued.
I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if it passed. NH is usually easy to persuade when it comes to charging visitors for almost anything.
Thing is, how many of the rescues involve out of state people? They would have no power to take an out of state license, so this will only work for their own residents, the ones who presumably already paying state taxes.
Doesn't sound like a good solution to me.
rlharris
02-25-2008, 15:01
Lots of bill get introduced into the NH General Court. Each one is referred to the appropriate committee (in this case, Fish and Game) which holds hearings then makes recommendations. One of the recommendations can be "not expedient to legislate." This bill is currently in committee with a hearing held on February 19th. It is due out of committee on March 13th. You can follow the progress if interested by going to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/index/indexstatus.asp?expbillno=hb1648&txtsessionyear=2008
This is BS...This will cause more people to hesitate on calling for a rescue and potentially cause more people to die on the mtn. Somebody needs to wake up. You seriously think someone is going to say, "Wow, NH is tough on negligent hikers. I'm still going to refuse to carry necessary gear. I'll just sit down and die if I get into trouble?"
Don't be ridiculous. No one in danger is going to decide to die rather than be rescued, whether it costs or not.
If they weren't negligent, they won't be charged. That's what I don't understand about all the uproar. This law affects only people who are negligent. I don't understand why you are so fired up to defend and encourage negligence.
What we really want to avoid in NH is the Gestapo-like way Baxter is run. I want to go hiking where I want and when I want with a minimum of restrictions. If this can be accomplished by charging the people who are a drain on the system by refusing to be responsible, I can live with that.
Charge the few negligent ones. Leave the hundreds of thousands of responsible people alone.
They should take note of how colorado handles this situation. I believe it's 5 bucks/person for multi year permit which covers the cost of being rescued. Actually it doesn't cover the cost. Colorado has deeper pockets than NH. The money coming in from the permits is a drop in the bucket compared to rescue costs.
Christopher Robin
02-25-2008, 15:53
Mybe Winter premits need to be issued, & a required clothing & equipment list. Along w/a sign contract that the person is responsable for resue fee. Becuase there has been a lot of resues on Mt. Lafayyette, one just last week-end call hie girl-frenid to say he would need help and a helacopter resue was made.
HikerRanky
02-25-2008, 16:02
Passing a state law is not the answer here... Especially since people from outside the state are using the resource, and that a rescue may need to be done on the AT itself, which is a FEDERALLY protected area....
Seems to me that if a person has to be rescued, when they take them to the hospital and gather up all of the personal info, that a simple bill to the person would be all that is necessary.... Person doesn't have the financial resources to cover this in a lump sum, some sort of payment plan can be worked out by the rescuing organization. OF course, an interest charge can then be placed upon the payment plan...
Just my 2 miles worth...
Randy
I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if it passed. NH is usually easy to persuade when it comes to charging visitors for almost anything.
There's no way NH could suspend an out of state liscense... unless they have an agreement with the other states to suspend drivers liscenses for getting lost in the woods, which is extremely unlikely, NH doesn't have the authority to do so.
So, this law would only affect New Hampshire residents.
Jack Tarlin
02-25-2008, 18:57
Well, I'm a New Hampshire resident, and I have no problem with this.
I have no objection to billing idiots for unnecessary searches and rescues; nor do I have a problem with punishing folks who don't pay their bills.
Pretty simple.
mweinstone
02-25-2008, 19:01
and the money pays for new resque gear instead of makeing the municipality stretch out the overuse of old gear till its useless. this happens. i just made all that up based on only jacks post. its how i got thru high school without reading books. i can bull**** my way in or out.
ill leave now. its just that im homeless hear on white blaze. ever since my thread closed. i dont have any thread to hag out at.relly. im leaveing now.
Darwin again
02-25-2008, 19:44
People who don't pay their rescue bill should be beaten.
People should also be investigated with an eye to negligence every time they call the fire department, then billed appropriately.
Same with police calls.
And if they can't pay?
Beatings. (Jack can administer the punitive thrashings.)
And the beatings whould continue until morale improved and bills got paid.
But really, I'm still wondering about that suspending the business license part.
Would that apply to, say, a shuttle service? Outfitter? Er, what?
What are they thinking?
rlharris
03-18-2008, 17:03
HB 1648 was reported out of committee last week and passed the house with amendments today (March 18th). Details can be seen by starting at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/index/indexresults.asp
It now moves to the Senate.
Well.. New Hampshire is the state that had proposals for a time change unique to NH, and to increase our already bloated legislature (more legislators here than any other state).
On blance though, I have to agree with Jack on this one. Some one dumb enough to venture into these mountains unprepared or illequiped deserves to get his comupance! They should pay all fees and fines for being rescued (which the law already requires) and if they can't or won't pay, yeah go after their wages or take away their liicense. I bet they will think twice next time!
DavidNH
Rain Man
03-18-2008, 18:51
...That's what I don't understand about all the uproar. This law affects only people who are negligent. ...
You know the definition of "negligent"? It's a low standard. It certainly is NOT being an "idiot," as Jack tries to imply.
Being negligent is simply making a mistake. We all make mistakes.
"Reckless" is a whole 'nuther higher standard... approaching a bit closer to Jack's "idiot" standard. "Reckless" makes sense for punishing people.
Punishing people for simply making a mistake, even an honest mistake, does not make sense to me.
Rain:sunMan
.
Chef2000
03-18-2008, 20:33
This would be in response to the large number of winter rescues that have so far occured this year in the White Mountains. Deaths, several people helicoptered off Franconia Ridge, more people getting lost, etc. Most of these people were not properly outfitted and/or didn't turn around when conditions deteriorated. The state already can charge for the rescue in some cases, but however they worded the law actually makes collecting hard. People are p.o.'s enough that they're trying to come up with easier ways to punish people for stupidity. I doubt anything will actually come of this.
one guy called and when asked if he had a gps , he said yes, but i do not know how to use it.
NorthCountryWoods
03-19-2008, 06:13
NH seems to be trying it's hardest to change that "Live Free or Die" motto.
Who opened this can of worms??
BT
It petty simple if they don't have the gear or maps or cloths with then do not allow them to go hikeing up the mountaing that simple and if they say any thing have them sign a paper saying they will paid for the rescue easy
overmywaders
03-19-2008, 14:51
This seems a lot like a thread last month.
When the person desiring rescue, or his friends or family, call for rescue, they are entering into an implicit contract, just as if they called for an ambulance. The difference is -- most people are never charged for the rescue, but they are always charged for the ambulance.
As for "negligence" just being a mistake, a fairly common legal definition of negligence is "A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances."
That is not a mistake, i.e., "a wrong judgment". A mistake would be interpreting bird excrement on a rock above tree-line as a trail marker and leaving the trail. Negligence would be not carrying a map and compass in order to find your way back to the trail. :)
Being negligent is simply making a mistake.Since when?
I don't understand why all these out-of-staters are defending the right to be negligent, to refuse to carry proper gear and clothing, and to put rescuers lives in danger without consequence.
I'm missing the rationale that says negligence is a good thing to encourage.
It petty simple if they don't have the gear or maps or cloths with then do not allow them to go hikeing up the mountaing that simple and if they say any thing have them sign a paper saying they will paid for the rescue easyThat's what NH is trying to avoid, a permit system to hike, with fees going toward rescue. Better to let the ones bogging down the current system pay their way rather than have everyone else cough up $$$ to pay for the very very few who refuse to be prepared.
Old Hillwalker
03-19-2008, 18:38
There's no way NH could suspend an out of state liscense... unless they have an agreement with the other states to suspend drivers liscenses for getting lost in the woods, which is extremely unlikely, NH doesn't have the authority to do so.
So, this law would only affect New Hampshire residents.
They can however place you under arrest if you are caught driving in NH after being denied permission to do so. Course they have to catch you.
This law can absolutely be challenged. It is common law that a punishment must bear some rational relationship with the crime. The state may not impose willy nilly any penalty it pleases.
The solution should be quite simple. A panel of NH citizens, preferably including some members of the S&R community, decide after the fact if the person who requested assistance took reasonable precautions or was negligent and unprepared. Depending on the circumstances, the rescued person could be charged the portion of the rescue cost they are found responsible for.
overmywaders
03-19-2008, 23:00
yahtzee,
You said:
It is common law that a punishment must bear some rational relationship with the crime.
The State of NH is not suggesting that a crime is committed when a rescue is performed. This is not a criminal statute, merely means of collection of a debt incurred as part of an implicit contract (see post above). Currently, the Dept of Fish & Game determines in each case whether a rescue was necessary because of recklessness on the part of the rescuee. If the F&G panel (or Director, I can't recall which) gives a finding of recklessness, the Dir. of F&G then bills the rescued party only for costs actually incurred. The maximum is $10,000 (and a long search with planes and copters could eat that up) but usually the amount billed is much less. For example, the copter time is often put under National Guard training, many (most?) of the searchers are volunteers, etc.. The new bill, if passed, makes it easier to determine who should be billed for rescue (negligent people vs. the reckless); but no-one is being "punished" -- so the system is acting much as you envision it should.
BTW, someone, not you, Yahtzee, mentioned that out-of-state hikers are immune from having their driver's licenses pulled. NH has reciprocity agreements with many states regarding driver's license revocation. If a MA driver fails to pony up the cost of rescue, the State of NH can easily request MA to revoke the ingrate's driver's license. Of course, IMHO, anyone who is rescued should be so profoundly grateful for the efforts involved in their rescue that they would immediately pay up -- as some small recompense for said rescue. YMMV
dessertrat
03-20-2008, 05:15
The problem here is that you have to show that the person was reckless or negligent. Is it worth the state's time to prove that for a maximum take of 10 grand, or is this just a "feel good, help ease our frustration" measure. I would say the latter.
And I still say that some people who need rescue will in fact "tough it out" rather than call for help if they know they may have to pay for rescue, and that may lead to more deaths in the mountains. Judgment is one of the first things that deteriorates with hypothermia.
overmywaders
03-20-2008, 12:40
dessertrat,
You said:
"The problem here is that you have to show that the person was reckless or negligent. Is it worth the state's time to prove that for a maximum take of 10 grand, or is this just a "feel good, help ease our frustration" measure. I would say the latter."
The State doesn't have to prove anything, unless the person takes it to court. It would be, IMHO, a very foolish person who would dispute a rescue bill - the legal fees and court costs would probably exceed his rescue bill and the negative publicity ("bloody ingrate") might adversely affect him as well.
Do people normally not call an ambulance when they believe they need one? And subsequently, do they refuse to pay the ambulance bill because the ER intern found no problem?
You said:
"And I still say that some people who need rescue will in fact "tough it out" rather than call for help if they know they may have to pay for rescue, and that may lead to more deaths in the mountains. Judgment is one of the first things that deteriorates with hypothermia."
Most hikers will not be charged for their rescue. Those who know they had prepared adequately will not hesitate to call when they break their leg above tree-line. Those who are negligent (read "foolish") probably believe the world revolves around them and everyone will be delighted to carry them out because they have become tired or stubbed their toe.
I conjecture, but cannot of course prove, that human nature will not change as a result of the amended statute.
dessertrat
03-20-2008, 21:45
Wrong. The state has to prove its case to bill someone for a rescue. The notion that the state does not have to do so is flat out wrong.
overmywaders
03-21-2008, 03:09
Dessertrat,
The rescue is a legal contract. The proof of the State's performance of the contract is the person of the rescued. NH then bills the negligent for costs, just as an ambulance co. bills for costs. No proof of conveyance in either case is necessary unless the rescued person sues. Most pay.