View Full Version : Cost of rescue-- a proposal
berninbush
10-25-2009, 14:20
I was just reading another article about the Grand Canyon morons and a general commentary on the growing problem of GPS/ cell phone rescue call abuse. It got me thinking, and I had an idea about preventing this sort of thing while still making sure that people who legitimately need help get it.
You could have a judge (or maybe a three-judge panel) who reviews these incidents after the fact and decides whether 1. the person was adequately prepared and just ran into hard luck/ unforseeable circumstances, or 2. the person was not as well prepared as they should have been, but not wildly irresponsible, and in genuine need of rescue, or 3. the person was grossly unprepared and/or called for rescue when they were just being lazy or unreasonable.
For option 1, the person shouldn't pay anything for the rescue. For option 2, maybe they should pay a fixed fine, like $500 or so. For option 3, they should be charged the full cost of the rescue (which, if helicopters are involved, may run into thousands of dollars easily). That would cut down on a lot of unnecessary calls!
People would have to agree to this when they sign up for a backcountry permit. It would be a good reminder on the front end to be prepared.
I don't know what you'd do about the ones where the button gets accidentally pushed in the backpack. It seems kind of harsh to charge those folks the full cost of a helo rescue. I don't understand why the GPS designers don't put some sort of shielding over that button.
While this exact proposal may prove to be unworkable logistically, it is thinking in the right direction. People who are grossly negligent and fail to heed all legitimate warnings and wander off into any wilderness without proper planning and equipment should be held financially responsible for the results. Same with those who abuse the resources such as (apparently) was the case in the Grand Canyon. The problem comes when laws are written and implemented that have no provision for a formal determination of the facts, where both sides are allowed to argue their case, and a decision is just imposed by the very folks who will stand to benefit financially from the fines/charges.
I still think that a feasible partial solution would be to require rescue insurance with the sale/rental/use of SPOT or similar devices, part of the cost of the device is an insurance policy. That way, both legitimate and abusive rescues would be paid for, and the local communities would be out nothing but time. The insurance company could then sue the abusive clients to recover their costs.
Another option would be a national program modeled after Colorado's. Cheap insurance for legitimate rescues. No coverage for abuse.
The next thing you know someone will be offering "Rescue Insurance" at the trailhead.
The next thing you know someone will be offering "Rescue Insurance" at the trailhead.
Wouldn't even need to be staffed, just a vending machine like the airports have. :D
Wise Old Owl
10-25-2009, 15:12
http://www.i-world.net/oma/news/rescue/oregonian-2002-06.html
Good article WOO. But in light of what some areas do, I think at least having the option of a low-cost insurance policy is the lesser of the two evils.
I'm more worried about the cost of rescuing all those poor CEOs and their failed banks. :rolleyes:
berninbush
10-25-2009, 18:41
Good article, WOO.
Selling rescue insurance with the SPOT would certainly not have kept the Grand Canyon posse from abusing the system-- in fact it would have just encouraged them, since they would have "already paid for it." Besides, SPOT users aren't the only ones who call for help, by any means.
A way to objectively separate "legitimate" and "irresponsible" rescues is definitely needed, but I think having an insurance company sue the hiker to recover the money is the WORST possible way of handling it. So many things are so expensive in this country, and our court system is so ridiculously clogged, because of the cost and length of lawsuits. Things can be decided much more quickly, cheaply, and fairly if parties have agreed in advance to binding arbitration, like the three-judge system I described above, without the costs of lawyers or legal fees. You just have to make sure the judges don't have direct benefit from whatever fees or fines are paid-- they need to come from a professional arbitration company, for example.
I understand the article's point about not wanting to charge people for rescue at all, in order to not deter them from calling for help when it's really needed. But if people know that genuinely needed help won't cost them, it only makes them ask, "Is this really necessary?" And that's exactly the right question.
The Weasel
10-25-2009, 18:45
We have these things now. They are called "courts." If someone is cited (ticketed) for the rescue and hauled into criminal court, judges will decide (on a criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt') if they violated a law and should be fined or sanctioned. If it is a civil charge, judges will make a similar decision on a lower standard of "a preponderance of the evidence", i.e. more likely than not that they were negligent. "Panels" exist with appellate courts, usually 3 or more judges. Not until there is a judicial finding of negligence or violation of some law is there an ability of the government to force someone to pay anything. Even "sending a bill" is subject to dispute and a court hearing/trial. In many or most such situations, the rescuee can request a jury, although that may not be always a good idea.
TW
berninbush
10-25-2009, 19:05
My problem with that, Weasel, is that philosophically I don't believe it should be illegal to go into the woods "unprepared" (by someone else's definition-- and it's clear that definitions vary widely). The court system is already overburdened and too expensive. And foolish hikers need education, not a criminal record.
Binding arbitration does work if the parties agree to it in advance. Just make it a condition of getting a back country permit, and you've got your legal grounds.
On the insurance idea: If you've got enough $25,000 helicopter rescues going on, the cost of that insurance is going to go very high very quickly. That effectively drives up the cost of the SPOT to the point where ordinary folks can't afford it.
The Weasel
10-25-2009, 20:35
Most places don't require permits. You're being inconsistent: If there are requirements for a permit, that's being required to be prepared. Foolish hikers who don't prepare can't complain if they are charged for the preparation done by rescue services. The court systen isn't that overburdened, either.
TW
Cost of rescue-- a proposal ?
Sounds like another good reason to vote Libertarian to me.................
LIhikers
10-25-2009, 22:04
It's nice to know that people are thinking about this problem.
I've gotta say though, I doubt most judges, or other non hikers, would know if i was prepared or not. After all, most of my friends and family would never sleep in the woods and go without a shower day after day and if anything went wrong it would just confirm their thoughts that I'm crazy and irresponsible.
They should just leave all us crazy hikers alone.
Eliminate SAR.
Survival of the fittest.
No cost.
Jonnycat
10-26-2009, 08:25
If you summon help, but are not sufficiently injured to justify SAR, they should drop you from the helicopter so you really need help.
Jayboflavin04
10-26-2009, 10:17
Its a rough situation. The infamous catch 22 as they say! If you start imposing laws every person entering a state/national park or forest will need to carry a 3lb first aid kit, a 100ft of climbing rope, a harness, have proper training in x,y & z, but it would make people think twice about doing foolish things. Such as the Grand Canyon incident. You start making people pay for insurance. They are going to use it! So the rate of incident goes up even more.
I say the best option would be to put it in the hands of the military/local EMs's. They dont have a problem fueling/maintianing a helicopter for a routine training mission. Might as well require our military dollars work for us. I am not bad mouthing fire fighters or police men or EMS, or the military. But these are our tax dollars at work everyday 24/7 365. Weather we need them or not. I also understand that these people put there behinds on the line on a regular basis, but they know that and that is what they get paid for.
Lets throw this out there to anyone who is an EMS....How many stupid calls do you get on a regular basis in the town or city, and do these people ever get fined.
brian2o0o
10-31-2009, 09:01
Have to agree with Jayboflavin... I'm a police officer and most of the calls in a day are a waste of time because people don't know how to act like adults, but thats what i'm paid to do so I do it. People are going to go out on the trails unprepared no matter what. The best thing for them is probably the bad experience that makes them think about what they are doing the next time they go out. The trail is a place to get away from everything, lets not modernize it like everything else.