http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=bc8963ef-705a-477d-b254-e610c026d7ee
Good article with examples.
Good article with examples.
Intoxicated or unprepared will pay for rescue or lose license
- Thread starter carole
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
All of the examples have a cost under $1000 which the victims can presumably afford to pay, and probably will cost the state more in review process costs than the bill.
3 of the 4 are out of state and the license revocation will have no effect on them, just as the state has no good way to pursue out-of-state EZPass cheats.
I'm not surprised the VT school mentioned in the article went defunct if that trip was typical of their operations.
3 of the 4 are out of state and the license revocation will have no effect on them, just as the state has no good way to pursue out-of-state EZPass cheats.
I'm not surprised the VT school mentioned in the article went defunct if that trip was typical of their operations.
kevinmac
Member
There is reciprocity with most states so the offending party's license most likely will be suspended in his or her home state.
Last edited:
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
They can't get them to do it for EZPass which at least is motor-vehicle related, so I doubt it will happen for getting lost. At best they can suspend the victim's right to operate in NH which once again will be more in court costs than the sum involved.
WinterWarlock
Active member
EZPAss is a commercial entity whose services are leased to the states...they don't want to revoke anyone they don't have to, because it's such a cash cow for the parent company. The States don't do anything for EZpass except collect their share of the revenue...the billing, the devices, everything...is handled by TransCore.
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
I hope it will make people be more prepared. That's really what they are after. The state does not want to have to rescue people in the first place.
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
"When the department has sought reimbursement in the past, it has been paid in all but one case, Garabedian said."
So, if F&G have had no problem in obtaining reimbursement, why increase the enforcement options?
So, if F&G have had no problem in obtaining reimbursement, why increase the enforcement options?
WinterWarlock
Active member
Maybe the real point is just to reinforce this, so more people know about it. More like proactive PR perhaps...
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
I think you've missed my point. The only non-collection they've had is a business which became insolvent and in those situations there's often little a creditor can do.
Imposing such a harsh punishment to 'solve' a non-existent problem tends to alienate reasonable people. Revoking a driver's license severely impacts a person's ability to support themselves and their family. If such an imposition seems reasonable, then why limit it to driver's licenses? Why not extend it to other licenses as well, such a medical, attorney, pharmacy, nursing, etc?
It's too bad the newspaper reporter didn't probe a bit deeper and find out WHY the penalties had been increased for a non-problem.
Perhaps the NH legislative committee with oversight of F&G will ask why the policy change.
Obviously someone has to bear the cost of rescues. Some jurisdictions include those costs under the general category of 'ensuring the public safety' whereas others bill rescuees directly. It's not my intention to start yet one more debate as to the merits of either approach; rather, to question the reasonableness of a collection policy.
My take on the situation is the real F&G agenda is to once again draw attention to what they regardless as inadequate funding, and by putting an unreasonable policy in place they hope to do that. For some purposes the only bad publicity is no publicity.
Chip
Well-known member
I think the new law has expanded who will be charged and why vs simply being about how to collect the fee.
"The state no longer has to prove someone was "reckless" -- meaning they became aware of the substantial risk and consciously disregarded it -- to receive repayment for a rescue. Now the state only has to prove negligence."
So F&G may be anticipating more fines being charged and fewer being collected without the threat of license loss.
Personally I'm surprised at how low the stated costs are. The next phase might include higher costs for more of the incurred expenses.
"The state no longer has to prove someone was "reckless" -- meaning they became aware of the substantial risk and consciously disregarded it -- to receive repayment for a rescue. Now the state only has to prove negligence."
So F&G may be anticipating more fines being charged and fewer being collected without the threat of license loss.
Personally I'm surprised at how low the stated costs are. The next phase might include higher costs for more of the incurred expenses.
grouseking
Well-known member
And if certain people (like those listed in the article) didn't act like idiots in the woods, this might have been avoided alltogether.
On the other hand, isn't it true that Fish and Game is having major money issues? If so, it doesn't surprise me that they are taking these actions.
grouseking
On the other hand, isn't it true that Fish and Game is having major money issues? If so, it doesn't surprise me that they are taking these actions.
grouseking
Last edited:
DougPaul
Well-known member
None of the articles (or this discussion) take into account how much of the cost is borne by volunteers...
Doug
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
I was struck by that as well. Perhaps the rationale for costs is the F&G officers were going to be paid regardless of their duty assignments, so rather than work on task X they assisted in a rescue. If that's the case, then perhaps F&G bills only for those expenses over and above?
Mike P.
Well-known member
I suspect it's more of a PR move but since the cost are borne by NH even for non-residents, it's about making it easier to shift cost from the tax payer. PR, because while cost is not high to the state, when needed, it's high profile & due to the actions (silly, negligent or just an accident) of someone engaging in an activity with little citizen involvement. (Does 5% of the general population hike anything more than the local rail trail?)
EZ Pass records have been used to track people, noticably in divorces when one spouse says they went someplace but really went someplace else.....
EZ Pass records have been used to track people, noticably in divorces when one spouse says they went someplace but really went someplace else.....
If this goes through the perportrator could be seen as being reckless about being reckless. At least there will be less of a chance of being a repeat offender if they can't get there....of course they could alsways get a ride to the mountains from a freind; gosh forbid who could be potentially reckless also.
WinterWarlock
Active member
EZ Pass records have been used to track people, noticably in divorces when one spouse says they went someplace but really went someplace else.....
Let me just say this about that...
The same company that owns EZPass also owns Neptune Engineering...that's the company that allows your water company to drive down your street and read your meter using RFID. They also just bought another company for the same thing for your gas and electric - they can amass tons of info about you if they want. Luckily for all of us, they have acquired so many companies they have no idea how to make it all work together.
4Khiker
New member
One of the major reasons for the change in the hiker billing law is Fish and Game's ongoing fiscal crisis. The department has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years on search and rescue missions (not all hiker rescues, either) and earlier this year depleted all funds left in its existing S&R account (and in essence, operated in the red from then on.) State legislators, aware of this situation, along with F&G's agency-wide funding crisis, have been seeking ways to recoup S&R costs for the past couple of years and this new "negligent" hiker standard is one way to come up with funds that don't come directly out of taxpayers' wallets or from more traditional S&R funding sources, such as OHRV registrations and fishing and hunting licenses.
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
You're not from NH, are you
Unlike other states, NH takes revenue seriously and has a camera at each EZPass lane to capture license plates of vehicles that don't record a number. If you have a NH plate they will issue a stiff fine which if you don't pay they would suspend your registration. That meant if a cop stopped you for something else, he would discover the car was not registered and have it towed and let you take a cab home. Depending on the hour when this happened, you could be walking for a couple days until you were able to straighten things out. (Yes, this has happened, and at least once to a guy who did pay but they forgot to reinstate his registration, which made great news.)
Not surprisingly, other states found this a bit harsh and refused to suspend a registration for failure to pay toll (which was often a computer glitch) and I'm sure they'll feel the same way about a rescue fee. Even the NH legislature came around and they no longer suspend your registration, but just refuse to renew it so you still have a car to use to arrange payment.
If you read the article, they are talking about revoking other licenses. And because they can only revoke NH licenses, it will do nothing about the issue of out-of-staters not paying.
And this was a law passed by the legislature, not a F&G policy.
WinterWarlock
Active member
You're not from NH, are you
Not yet anyway!
I think there have been a few comments that nailed it - with decreasing revenues everywhere, the state's will all be looking for ways to bring in more income without necessarily having to call it a 'tax'. If NH is bad, NY is in dire straits - there are many new 'fees' being currently proposed that will cost each New Yorker a significant amount of coin going forward.
Kevin Rooney
New member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 354
Other states don't?! That's an interesting statement, to say the least.
Similar threads
