Well I owe the City of New York $500 for my rescue.
Now keep in mind that in NYC, a majority of the people don’t own a car. I was washing the dishes and a glass broke and I cut my hand pretty badly.
My neighbor, the only one I know who owns a car, wasn’t home so 911 had to be called. An ambulance came, they washed my wound, bound it up and drove me 15 blocks to the nearest ER.
A year and half later, I get a bill for $500.
Insurance would have covered it, if I had filed for it sooner.
US society/government already tries way to hard to protect us from ourselved. I’m all for removing signs that say “No hiking past this point” and replacing them with signs that read “By passing this point, you accept responsibility for your actions, and may be billed for an rescue needed”. Then give the rescue agencies the ability to bill for their services, in cases of neglect on the part of the rescuee.
So if you are driving on a public road, and a huge rock falls on you, rescue is on us. If you wander out onto a lake in Minnesota, in April, with people warning you that the ice is thin, then you get to foot the bill.
Respectfully I would like to submit this is a terrible thing to encourage people to think. Being out alone in the elements without food or shelter can be dangerous and potentially lethal. Preparation, equipment, common sense, and a healthy respect for danger is essential.
You said you didn’t want anyone wasting even 60 seconds wondering about the cost before calling in for a rescue. I would rather they spend 60 seconds thinking, “Gosh, I wonder if there’s anything I might need to know before wandering away into the mountains without food or water?”
I’m not sure I agree with the idea of putting up “Don’t Go Past This Point, Stupid” signs, because then someone’s simply bound to say “I can’t be responsible for knowing it was dangerous because I didn’t see a sign.”
If you refuse to pay the state shouldn’t be able to get a judgment without a jury trial but that seems a huge waste of the courts time and the State’s revenue.
I can see some surcharge in cases of gross misconduct perhaps. i.e. ones which involve trespass, or inner tubing during a flood.
And the service is free if you own shares in the government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6CkltzGAxY
Well, no one is charged by the fire department. Or the police department, for that matter. So if the rock climber starts a kitchen fire on Mt. Whaysay and needs to have it extinguished by the fire department, then I say there should be no charge.
But since we aren’t talking about the fire department, I’m not sure what the relevance is.
So EMS is free in that jurisdiction? I didn’t get that from the article. Where did you?
When I cut my finger at work EMS was called. All they did was clean and dress the wound. They did not transport me to the hospital. The bill was $300. I’m not sure how much of that was subsidized. Damn little, I suspect. However, my point is that if I am charged for a routine emergency call, why should someone who was rescued from a potentially life threatening situation not be charged? If you want to assert that everything should be pay as you go, well that’s another argument.
I’m not making that argument, although if I were I would point out that mountain activities are more risky by several orders of magnitude, so applying the associated charges “equally” would result in the rescuee being charged more, not less.
If anybody’s keen to declare equivalence between the use of a fire department and of emergency search-and-rescue, then I’d like to see the stats.
There are hundreds of millions of people who live in houses in the United States. Surely a small number of them actually catch fire and burn completely to the ground. Some jurisdictions enact levies — local voluntary voter-approved taxes — to subsidize fire departments, to be ready should a fire occur. To prevent fires we have building codes, electrical inspections, and governmental oversight. To minimize fire damages we have hydrants and smoke detectors and handheld extinguishers and an emergency-response communications network.
There are, by comparison, tens of thousands of mountaineers and dedicated backwoods skiers. There are no building codes overseeing one’s safety if one is an irresponsible dumbass, no “You’re Fucking Stupid” detector that goes off when one wanders off the beaten path past signs reading “Avalanche Danger, You Will Die.”
Why do we subsidize fire, and not emergency rescue?
If your house burns out of control, then so might mine next door, and the house beyond that. Neighborhoods could be lost. How many times has history seen a destructive city-wide blaze? San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, and London come to mind without even concentrating.
Fire, in a word, is contagious. Disease is contagious. We subsidize prevention of them. How many people were inexplicably lost as a result of the Amelia Earhart disappearance?
Being lost is not contagious. If someone gets lost out in avalanche country, I’m in no danger of being lost as well. There’s no cascade failure as with uncontrolled fire.
The White Mountains of NH get millions of visitors every year. The vast majority of S&R calls we see here are for novice or fairly new hikers, not experienced mountaineers. (Not that it can’t happen, but it rarely does.) Even a broken ankle on Franconia Ridge (a challenging but extremely popular day hike) might require a helicopter evac because a litter carry from up there requires 20 people and 8+ hours. There was a case two years ago of a woman who was hiking with her family and a rock fell on her and killed her. It was over 2 hours before help reached them - no cell coverage and the group didn’t know where to go for help. The were literally just walking along a trail near a waterfall, it could have happened to anyone.
Lots of people use the White Mountains, most for simple day trips where they often don’t carry the necessary gear for an overnight. The tourist industry (and the economy) of Northern NH depends on them. It’s in their best interest that people feel comfortable in the mountains. The danger is to do this while avoiding a nanny state or having people assume help is just a phone call away.
Sure — the National Parks, as a whole, have millions of visitors. The vast majority of them do not need to be rescued by helicopter because they ventured twenty yards off the trail to tread on the alpine meadows.
I’d have to guess that the majority of the people who need expensive search-and-rescue efforts are the ones who go very far off the beaten path, surely a smaller figure.
In NH, where 6 million venture in the White Mountain National Forest each year, very little terrain is out of day hike range. Several 100,000 hike each year, and the majority of the injuries/rescues/searches are not people far off the beaten path. They happen on popular hiking trails most of the time. While the majority of visitors don’t go too far from the road, many 100,000 do and most of them only hike 2 or 3 times a year.
Winter rescues are more dangerous and can be costly, but the majority of rescues take place in summer when the hoards are on the trails. The other big chunk of rescues in NH come from alcohol related incidents. Lots of folks party in the woods.
ETA - Another big source of rescue operations is snowmobilers.
Actually, many fire departments do charge for a fire call. Homeowners insurance usually covers it.
Oh, Shut Up.
As far as the OP, yes, the state SHOULD charge. Many (mostly rural) jusridictions allow, as Fubaya points out for the fire department to bill for response only because they aren’t funded the same way as the police departments and have no way to raise their own revenue. Futher, most ambulance companies public and private bill, to some extent, your insurance company, for the ride and supplies. The SERIVCE is free, billed to the taxpayer, the raw materials, so to speak, are on you. Same goes with unscrewing a screwed up situation (i.e. rescue). The rescuers come with their tools and skills, when they need to use a rope to pull you up, that rope can never be used for another rescue and is pulled from service. That’s one cost of many to the responding agency… If you go where you shouldn’t and do things that risk your life, why should WE pay for YOU to be an idiot?
We DO subsidize rescue. We subsidize essentially EVERYTHING. Fire departments do many times more than emergency rescue companies/agencies on a daily basis from responding to CO calls to lifting people who’ve fallen (and can’t get up, ha!). Because there isn’t a daily, screaming need for full-on search and rescue battalions, they aren’t funded to the extent that fire departments are because funding an outfit that does, essentially nothing, for the greater part of the year is a poor use of taxpayer funds. Imagine buying a boat for yourself, outfitting it with the latest and greatest in boating technology, filling it with fuel, pulling it into a dock, and leaving it alone there for 9 months. Would that be a good return on your investment, or would you sell it? Same deal.
On a per-person per-hour rate, hiking out in the woods beyond the limits of the trail sure seems like it would be riskier behavior than staying at home.
What do you mean, beyond the limits of the trail? Most rescues are people who got injured on the trail. And of the ones that occur off trails it’s because the hikers got lost, not because they went bushwacking.
Sure, hiking (or anything outdoors) is more dangerous then staying at home, but the riskiest part of the trip statistically is still the drive to the trailhead. We’re not talking alpine mountaineering, people here hike all the time. It is IMO a reasonable risk to assume - it’s also the lifeblood of the economy in summer. The locals want to encourage people to hike.
That sounds good, and it is, but I doubt it would deter the determinedly stupid. On the way up Mount Washington (in the Whites) there is a sign saying, essentially, “People die up here all the time. Even in summer, this mountain kills people.” Actually, I think it might even say something like “dozens have died.” This sign is something like 100 yards past an enclosed, heated, staffed shelter.
And I met a guy who walked past that sign, after dark, on a night that was forecast for rain.
THAT’s the kind of idiot we’re talking about here. As **Telemark **has indicated, they’re not doing this to the slightly-dumb people who have an outdated map or a broken tent. They’re charging the willfully obtuse, the doggedly, selfishly arrogant assholes who think a pair of boots and some testosterone makes them Bear Grylls, and who interpret warning signs as a challenge to their manhood.
Fuck those guys. Make 'em pay every penny.
So should I have to pay $500 for a simple ambulance run in Brooklyn NY?
http://www.hikethewhites.com/photos/warning_sign.jpg
Those signs are at the major trailheads and near treeline on the popular trails. Most people take their pictures with the sign, but I don’t know if they ever actually read it.
I wonder how much it costs the US Coastguard/taxpayers when one of those deep-diving fools (on the Andea Doria) needs a rescue?
-dispatch a helicopter from New London (maybe $50,000?)
-send CG Cutter (with doctor on board)-$25,000?
-ready medical trauma team/.recompression chamber (with medical specialists)-$30,000?
All tghis because some nitwit wants a teacup from a 50-year old shipwreck!
Who are you talking to? I don’t think anyone has addressed your issue, which is unrelated to the OP’s question.