View Full Version : Common sense and over regulation
Jim Adams
08-05-2009, 02:23
I found this qoute in a paramedic training book called Nancy Caroline's Emergency Care In The Streets. I'm sure that you all have noticed my posts about New Hampshires rescue procedures and my attitude towards it. I thought that this qoute may open some eyes.
"There is a theory that says if people keep falling off a mountain you should put a fence around the mountain to keep people from climbing it. Another theory says that you should tear down the mountain so that people can't fall off it. Yet another theory says that if you educate people on safe climbing you can prevent them from falling. Finally, there are some who believe an ambulance should be parked at the base of the mountain to save the people who keep falling. So goes the controversy of injury and potential interventions."
Hiking can at times be risky even when using common sense. Do you really want an agency (any agency) restricting your freedoms and enforcing their "common sense" on you? The general public has to understand that EVERYTHING you do has some inherent risks and be willing to accept them. Some people make it to Wal-Mart and some wreck on the way. Should you be restricted as to when and how you go to Wal-Mart? Should you be forced to carry an agency's gear list of equipment to hike in any area to satisfy their idea of safety?
geek
Jim,
I understand what you are driving at, but it is possible to be negligent. The NH case is about as extreme as you will find in the US and is a result of a rescue situation. The guy was out for a day hike and was rescued on day 3 heading towards the ridgeline after leaving a marked trail. Are there folks that think he was prepared and made the right choices? Absolutely. He survived, didn't he? Are there folks who think he made multiple errors while injured and caused an all out two day search in conditions that could have killed him? Without a doubt. This kid's problem was that he required a rescue even though he seemed to be on the verge of getting out. Personally, I think the moment he was injured and left a marked trail he was negligent. You stay put and hunker down. It's that simple.
fiddlehead
08-05-2009, 04:23
The next thing you know they'll be saying you can't hike alone.
Too much regulation already.
Put a sign at the trailhead saying "Hike at your own risk" if you feel something must be done.
I like it, "Hike at your own risk, your rescue could cost you a fortune"
We've become too risk-averse as a society, which in the end, is not good common sense.
The best defense is a good offense.
.02 please.
Snowleopard
08-05-2009, 13:15
The White Mts. in NH are a somewhat special case. It's pretty easy for a clueless person to go for a pleasant summer walk from a resort and end up in a situation where survival is questionable even for the prepared. Some places have warning signs at treeline. Probably people in New England are familiar (and paranoid about) the weather on Mt. Washington. People from the rest of the country and Canada may not have heard all the weather stories. It's common to see people hiking with no gear, no flashlight, no warm clothes, etc. This isn't a serious problem in most places unless they get serously lost, but above treeline it can be very bad. The saving grace here is that the most dangerous places are a rather hard long hike. I'm not sure what should be done about this.
The kid in question followed a marked trail off the ridge line, but reached a point where he couldn't proceed (very deep wet snow undercut by flowing streams). He may have been told by AMC staff at Pinkham Notch that this was a reasonable bailout route. It was not. People experienced in spring conditions in the Presidentials knew this was a mistake. There was at least one other lost hiker in the same area earlier, who also survived.
Cannibal
08-05-2009, 13:31
If a person wants to be stupid and survive, let them pay for the rescue. They have set-up a rescue 'insurance' card out here in Colorado and I think it makes a lot of sense; CORSAR (http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/sar/sar_purchase.html). If you need to be rescued, the plan (assuming you are participating) pays the bulk of the costs. It will not pay for medical transportation (still on your own there), but it not only pays for the search teams but also uses the leftover funds at the end of the year to help pay for the training of the SAR volunteers. Might be a good thing for NH to look into if they haven't already.
Best of both worlds for the preparation challenged; you get to hike and still stand a reasonable chance of rescue if needed, plus it doesn't cost a fortune to get rescued. At $3 a year it is a no-brainer; $12 for five years.
If a person wants to be stupid and survive, let them pay for the rescue. They have set-up a rescue 'insurance' card out here in Colorado and I think it makes a lot of sense; CORSAR (http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/sar/sar_purchase.html).
Best of both worlds for the preparation challenged; you get to hike and still stand a reasonable chance of rescue if needed, plus it doesn't cost a fortune to get rescued. At $3 a year it is a no-brainer; $12 for five years.
.
Just to clarify, you will get rescued whether you have a CORSAR card or not.
And, I think you hinted at it, but just to state point blank (from the website you linked)
The CORSAR Card Is Not Insurance
The card is not insurance and does not reimburse individuals nor does it pay for medical transport. Medical transport includes helicopter flights or ground ambulance. If aircraft are used as a search vehicle, those costs are reimbursed by the fund. If the aircraft becomes a medical transport due to a medical emergency, the medical portion of the transport is not covered.
The CORSAR card is essentially a charitable donation card to help defray the cost of rescues (basically what you said). Many of the rescues are done in counties with a lower tax base. So that card helps defray the cost of training, rescues, equipment, etc. But, to emphasize again you will get a search and rescue whether you have a card or not.
Whether you get charged for evac entirely depends on the agency. A friend of mine suffered from a freak altitude sickness at a ski hut. He had to be evaced by helicopter. The local national guard unit who did the evac did not charge him because they had to get in so much training time a year anyway. (I also suspect it helped that the evac was not due to negligence but a medical emergency that was not expected). Also, as the text above states, you will not get charged for the search even if a helicopter is used.
Basically, the search is free. The rescue may or may not be charged to you based on whether transport is used and the agency in question. Regardless if you have a CORSAR card or not.
Not trying to pick on you, just trying to clarify this common misconception that crops up on lots of outdoor forums. :)
Cannibal
08-05-2009, 14:50
Not trying to pick on you, just trying to clarify this common misconception that crops up on lots of outdoor forums. :)
No worries. You're right about misconceptions, I should have been more clear. :cool:
common sense is not so common
That is where the problem lies
Jonnycat
08-05-2009, 16:23
Having no idea (nor a link to follow) what New Hampshire case a few of you are talking about, I am unfortunately unable to comment about it.
However, I believe in the fundamental principle that a few idiots hurting themselves should not in any way lead to restrictions for everyone else. The only thing that should happen is that the idiots either suffer the consequences, and/or pay for their assistance.
Also, sometimes stuff just happens, it's life, accept it and move on, but don't try and "fix" it, because it's life.
Rain Man
08-05-2009, 17:29
At the risk of showing how bad a mind-reader I am, I'm going to compare two of your posts from two threads. If I'm totally off-base, just say so.
In the "boy hurts himself on Mt. Washington" thread here, you say:
The general public has to understand that EVERYTHING you do has some inherent risks and be willing to accept them.
In the "boy kills woman while hunting" thread, you say:
I feel for the victims family but also for the hunter and his family. THAT WAS AN ACCIDENT!
I don't follow how someone "has to ... be willing to accept [inherent risks]," when you seem to pass off killing someone as just an accident (a word I very much disagree with, but will accept for sake of argument). Why shouldn't anyone using a gun be willing to accept the risks too? You didn't seem to argue that the hunter should suffer the consequences of his inherently-risky act. Did I read too much into your post?
I do agree that everything has risks and that we all should accept that fact. How I interpret that and how I'd write a law about it may differ, though. I don't just think there's a risk to falling off a cliff; I also think there's a risk that you might be rescued at a cost. So, one way of looking at it is that a hiker takes the risk of falling and the risk of costly rescue too. Is that what you're saying?
Rain:sunMan
.
Blissful
08-05-2009, 20:09
Might was well not get behind the wheel of a car then. Need to fence off cars.
The general public has to understand that EVERYTHING you do has some inherent risks and be willing to accept them.Yep, and one of the risks of hiking in NH without adequate preparation is paying for your rescue. Be willing to accept that or stay out of the NH woods. Hike in another state, one that encourages irresponisble hikers. Works out great for us. We don't want stupid and unprepared hikers here anyway.
The more people complain about paying for rescues the better we like it.
Helps get the word out to hike prepared or be prepared to pay.
Or put up a $50K bond for your rescue if needed, and hike any way you want.
Too much regulation already.
Put a sign at the trailhead saying "Hike at your own risk" if you feel something must be done.Won't work as long as there are lawyers. Lawyers are too good at weaseling around things. The state would be sued sign or no sign, like when some folks sued because the government didn't predict rain and prevent hikers from hiking in a slot canyon. That was supposedly hike at your own risk, but they sued anyway.
People are willing to accept risk as long as nothing happens, but if something goes wrong, they change their mind and quickly point fingers and dial up a lawyer to sue.
Also, even though the hiker may accept the risk, the family may not and sue.
I think it is a good policy to charge people who are negligent and advertise the fact widely. Cuts down on rescues and saves lives and results in smarter hikers.
There was a big fuss over the guys who got blown off Mt. Hood a few years back and everyone cried that people shouldn't be allowed to put themselves in that kind of potential danger. I don't think they knew that it was going to get them killed but it was a calculated risk and they had the right to take it because that's what some people enjoy doing. I say let em' go.
Jim Adams
08-05-2009, 23:14
[quote=Rain Man;876742]At the risk of showing how bad a mind-reader I am, I'm going to compare two of your posts from two threads. If I'm totally off-base, just say so.
In the "boy hurts himself on Mt. Washington" thread here, you say:
In the "boy kills woman while hunting" thread, you say:
I don't follow how someone "has to ... be willing to accept [inherent risks]," when you seem to pass off killing someone as just an accident (a word I very much disagree with, but will accept for sake of argument). Why shouldn't anyone using a gun be willing to accept the risks too? You didn't seem to argue that the hunter should suffer the consequences of his inherently-risky act. Did I read too much into your post?
I do agree that everything has risks and that we all should accept that fact. How I interpret that and how I'd write a law about it may differ, though. I don't just think there's a risk to falling off a cliff; I also think there's a risk that you might be rescued at a cost. So, one way of looking at it is that a hiker takes the risk of falling and the risk of costly rescue too. Is that what you're saying?
Rain:sunMan
EXACTLY!
The problem isn't that the boy accidently shot and hit the woman, as unfortunate as that is but the fact that she needs to understand the inherent risks that she was hiking in hunting season...same as the boy hiking in the Whites accepting that he is in a harsh possibly life threatening environment. ACCEPT YOUR RISKS AND MOVE ON or stay out of the woods / wilderness and sit in front of your TV or computer screen!:-?
geek
fiddlehead
08-05-2009, 23:15
There was a big fuss over the guys who got blown off Mt. Hood a few years back and everyone cried that people shouldn't be allowed to put themselves in that kind of potential danger. I don't think they knew that it was going to get them killed but it was a calculated risk and they had the right to take it because that's what some people enjoy doing. I say let em' go.
Sure. I agree totally.
Or else, if you have some lawyer suing somebody cause they broke their leg on the AT, those people would then be calling for the AT to be shut down.
Over regulation sucks!
My point in my first post on that other thread. The solution to arbitrary and excessive charges for rescue is to not leave an itinerary with anyone. Accept the risk, and if you are a day or two or three late, you won't get charged an obscene amount for an unnecessary "rescue".
Not sure this is what NH had in mind, but maybe it was. I am quite sure this is the position a lot of hikers will take if they decide to visit NH. I know I will.
fiddlehead
08-06-2009, 00:19
How about suing the state of NH or the AMC for not having enough cell phone coverage, so the party that is lost can call for help if he or she needs it?
Just kidding (in a way) but cell phone is the only protection i have in case of an emergency (that and my own common sense)
The Old Fhart
08-06-2009, 07:08
fiddlehead-"How about suing the state of NH or the AMC for not having enough cell phone coverage, so the party that is lost can call for help if he or she needs it?..."My answer (in the spirit of your post) is that you would lose because you'd be suing the wrong parties. Sue AT&T. :D
fiddlehead
08-06-2009, 08:18
I'm not a suing king of person.
I think it is one of the great faults of our country. Especially if the lawyers are allowed to take a cut of the winnings. They should work on an hourly basis win or lose. But, that's another argument.
OF course i was just trying to make a point.
Where i live, cell phone service is almost everywhere (90% of the country)
So carrying a cell phone is a better option than leaving a note for your wife saying to call 911 if you are not back by Tuesday. To me, that would cause more unfounded rescues than not.
Anyway, i have read enough stories of climbers in the Himalayas who have lived through some amazing weather and elements to think that i can survive a few nights out there. Especially if i have a Bic lighter and am in the woods.
Would i trade those nights for $25k? I guess i wouldn't know till the time came.
If i have my cell phone and am in coverage, i'll have that choice won't I?
Rain Man
08-06-2009, 10:08
I'm not a suing king of person. I think it is one of the great faults of our country. Especially if the lawyers are allowed to take a cut of the winnings. They should work on an hourly basis win or lose. But, that's another argument.
That is the argument that prevails in some other nations. All it means is that the big multi-national corporations rule the world and the little guy gets the shaft (even worse than in the USA). If that's how you want it,... move to one of those countries? ~wink~
Rain:sunMan
.
Rain Man
08-06-2009, 10:09
EXACTLY! The problem isn't that the boy accidently shot and hit the woman....
WOW!!!!
Rain:sunMan
.