Would you pay for hiker insurance?

It's talked about in a few threads. Many opinions are voiced. Mine are mixed. But if it was offered would you buy rescue insurance for $20/year.

Assumption is that it's on a per-state basis. Call it NH - the reason I posted in Q/A New England. You pay your money and you're covered for everything except gross negligence (I know - define that but you need to have some rules). You don't pay and you're automatically billed.

Ha! I always wanted to be first to vote in one of these polls!

If those were the only 2 choices, pay insurance, or pay a huge bill, then, yes.

You pay the $20, you get Priority Rescue Service.

You don't, you get to wait an extra day out in the woods before anything happens.

I kid, I kid...

Tim Seaver said:

You pay the $20, you get Priority Rescue Service.

Click to expand...

$40 gets you concierge level...

I know a lot will disagree, but my opinion is rather than calling it insurance just make hikers pay for a permit (similar to the parking fee structure, a cheap day fee, or an annual fee). If that fee went solely to outdoors funding (yes, the govt will steal it for something else...) I think it would be a good thing. The other good thing to this approach would be a lot of people would be forced to read/sign something that says, I understand what it means to be prepared for a hike, and if I don't do these things (like carry the 10 essentials) I can still be held liable for my rescue.
You have to pay to operate a car, you have to pay to hunt, you have to pay to fish, etc... Comparing a $20-30 pp annual fee to the amount that I spend on gas/Stewart's shops meals/campsites/etc... is a drop in the bucket.

Now define "hiking" for me, as it pertains to requiring this insurance or permit. Most things which require insurance or a license are to protect third parties. I.e., homeowner's insurance is not required by law - it is required by your lender. And, it contains clauses which don't pay for things like arson. Collision/Damage/Loss is likewise required for the auto loan. Driving a car, owning a gun, etc., require a license because you can hurt or kill other people. Do anglers or hunters, who pay for NH F&G licenses get free rescues today? I don't believe so.

I don't know about you, but I am pretty tired of signing waivers for everything I do. Why not a procreation license or permit or insurance? That can cause some real problems.

How will this be enforced? Do you want your wilderness experience to include trail junction checkpoints where you must stop and show your hiking permit? This will become another Ponzi scheme where those who obey the rules and act responsibly will pay for those who do not.

Much as I hate any new taxes or tax increases, given the current system in place in this country, the solution which makes the most sense is to throw a percentage of the existing rooms and meals tax towards F&G and the SAR program. If F&G was not stretched so thin, we would not be having this conversation.

Tim

What I object to is the amount, if you divide the SAR cost by the number of hikers in NH it comes out to like 10 cents/year. I would pay $10 for a lifetime card but $20/year is outrageous - even the $3/year mentioned for CO vastly exceeds what the State Insurance Commission would allow for a markup on any other type of insurance.

I'd gladly pay $20 as long as it covered me. If hiking solo with your dog is considered gross negligence than obviously it wouldn't do me much good.

I personally have no problem with the principle of insurance. But I have in the past run into situations where the insurance company insisted it didn't have to pay because....tra la la etc.

For instance I slip and break an ankle, and the insurance won't pay because I don't have a map or something that has nothing to do with it. Or maybe it's good on Tuckerman but not Huntington Ravine etc.

Whatever, I have thought for some time that there should be some kind of voluntary insurance program. I know that Skiers in France have had it for years. I'm not sure but I think it might have worked for hikers there too.

IM proboly the last person anyone would expect to support this, BUT it has its merits. I was in CO before here for a few years hiking and they sell it for 5 bucks. I though it was a great deal, a chance to contribute to the rescue system and insure that if you did get into trouble you where covered. That being said, I didnt mind paying 5 bucks, I think 20 is a little steep.

Tim brings up a point I always wonder about. What defines a hiker? I'm often a hiker but wasn't yesterday when I went into the woods to see the downhill mountain bike tracks my son has been building. I didn't have good footwear on or my trekking poles. If I had caught my dress shoe on a stump or slipped on the sloped trail because my sandals didn't have any traction, would hiking insurance have helped? I think this is another issue that will be argued into the ground without any other benefit than to have a lot of us thinking about it, which isn't a bad thing.

Call the dollar number whatever you like

I put $20 down as a number. Call it $20. Call it $10. Call it $2.

The intent is not to put a fixed amount on it but a relatively small amount ($20 in the hiking budget of most on VFTT is a small amount). Would you pay <insert fee here> for SAR insurance??

Definition: Hiking

You walking in WMNF and surrounding areas reasonably equipped for conditions. This is not intended to prompt a discussion of "reasonable" as that has been completely beat to death.

The poll is a general concept. If you want SAR you pay the fee. No fee no SAR or you get billed for it. Fair or unfair doesn't come into the picture.

Stash said:

You walking in WMNF and surrounding areas reasonably equipped for conditions. This is not intended to prompt a discussion of "reasonable" as that has been completely beat to death.

The poll is a general concept. If you want SAR you pay the fee. No fee no SAR or you get billed for it. Fair or unfair doesn't come into the picture.

Click to expand...

Actually I think that if you don't want the word reasonable to be in the discussion than this part should not be in the discussion:

Stash said:

You pay your money and you're covered for everything except gross negligence (I know - define that but you need to have some rules). You don't pay and you're automatically billed.

Click to expand...

Simply make it: Do you think there should be insurance and leave out the rest.

If they go broke by insuring too many incompetent hikers, will there be a bailout?

I couldn't support a plan to pay on a per-state basis. I frequently hike in CT, MA, NH, and VT. I occasionally make trips to ME and NY. To be "properly" covered, I'd have to shell out $120 a year for a service I will most likely never need.

If it were a federal program, it would make more sense. If the feds collected a fee and then dispensed it to the state entities that needed it while putting any excess into legitimate USFS/NPS projects, I could get behind it.

I would pay $20 per year if it applied to all US locations.

When I lived in France, the rescue insurance applied globally and cost IIFC about $40/yr...It was a group policy included in the membership of the CAF (a club similar to the AMC). Membership was available without the insurance if you had insurance from another source.

"Insurance," but only $5000 worth w/general membership ($75/year, less for seniors/juniors), already exists if one is a member of the American Alpine Club. See
http://www.americanalpineclub.org/globalrescue
Anyone here a member? If so, have you ever used it?

As a Hardrock 100 runner, I was required to purchase the CO "hiking license" each time I ran the race but fortunately never heard of any of the runners needing rescue.

The AAC insurance (which I have but have never used, and for which you can purchase upgrades on a per-trip basis) must be determined to be medically necessary.

$20. good deal. Can I get fries with that?

The insurance companies will figure this out so the won't lose money.