Rescuers fear "Yuppie 911"
- Thread starter carole
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
TDawg
Well-known member
Ridiculous...Unfortunately, an idiot is born every minute.
Disregard for other people's time and energy really pisses me off.
Too many of these "wolf criers" and SAR won't respond at all!
Disregard for other people's time and energy really pisses me off.
Too many of these "wolf criers" and SAR won't respond at all!
Last edited:
bristlecone
New member
There's that term I can't remember, risk ....something, the idea that if people feel safer because of equipment they engage in riskier behavior, like driving more dangerously while wearing a seatbelt, or faster on a snowy road because they have 4wd (which has nothing to do with braking...) and therefore risk is never really reduced.
Trouble with this, rescuers come risk their lives (and of course the effort and expense). And, as a happy SPOT owner, I am concerned that with having ill-prepared folk who think that their PLB is there to bring them services at their convenience, SAR may need to start reacting less vigorously to a PLB call for help.
Mandatory training/licensing program for PLB users? Could help. Fines for unnecessary calls? Yes please.
Trouble with this, rescuers come risk their lives (and of course the effort and expense). And, as a happy SPOT owner, I am concerned that with having ill-prepared folk who think that their PLB is there to bring them services at their convenience, SAR may need to start reacting less vigorously to a PLB call for help.
Mandatory training/licensing program for PLB users? Could help. Fines for unnecessary calls? Yes please.
Pete_Hickey
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,976
- Reaction score
- 222
It's just another twist, but technology is giving 'confidence' to people to do things and go places they would not otherwise.
We'll all be paying for it in the future.
We'll all be paying for it in the future.
DougPaul
Well-known member
I think you are confusing two distinct systems.
SPOT is not a PLB. PLBs (similar to ELTs (aircraft) and EPIRBs (nautical)) use Cospas-Sarsat, an international satellite system for search and rescue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLB.
SPOT is a commercial device using the Globalstar commercial satellite system. It is a plb, but not a PLB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPOT_Satellite_Messenger
There are already fines for frivolous use of PLBs.
Doug
Last edited:
DougPaul
Well-known member
As are cell phones, GPSes, compasses, paper maps, shoes, crampons, ice axes, ropes, ...
The key difference with cell phones, two-way radios, PLBs, and SPOT is that they can be used to call for help from the scene. Cell phones and radios allow an exchange of information which allow the rescuers to ***** the situation before responding while PLBs and SPOT only allow a single outgoing message "Help! I am at location <lat, lon>". The less information available to the rescuers, the more likely they are to over-respond to the actual situation.
Doug
Last edited:
TrishandAlex
New member
Frivilous use of a PLB is a sad thing indeed. However, I'm very glad they are made available to the general public. I feel a bit better knowing I have one in my pack, especially during the winter with Alex. She knows how to operate it in the very unlikely event I am knocked unconscious. We don't depend on it for safety, but it's a great option of last resort.
That being said, its presence isn't going to cause me to hike something I wouldn't have hiked otherwise.
The fine for misuse is a good thing. And perhaps, they could make them as expensive as they used to be? Someone who doesn't take safety all that seriously may not shell out four figures on a whim...
That being said, its presence isn't going to cause me to hike something I wouldn't have hiked otherwise.
The fine for misuse is a good thing. And perhaps, they could make them as expensive as they used to be? Someone who doesn't take safety all that seriously may not shell out four figures on a whim...
Last edited:
spider solo
New member
I could see a fine for frivilous use, but I wouldn't be in favor of making the devices themselves more expensive.
Mostly because I'm afraid it would "yuppify" them even more so.
Wouldn't want to see more "yuppification" of outdoor sports, but would rather see outdoor activities more for the "commoners", including safety aspects...but still a fine for misuse.
A lot of problems were predicted when cellphones became a part of our daily lives and people started hiking with them.. I could picture in the future things like SPOT devices (which I have) having some sort of Skype (sp?) where they get some sort of visual image..don't know if that's a good idea but, I wouldn't be overly suprised to see such a thing.
Mostly because I'm afraid it would "yuppify" them even more so.
Wouldn't want to see more "yuppification" of outdoor sports, but would rather see outdoor activities more for the "commoners", including safety aspects...but still a fine for misuse.
A lot of problems were predicted when cellphones became a part of our daily lives and people started hiking with them.. I could picture in the future things like SPOT devices (which I have) having some sort of Skype (sp?) where they get some sort of visual image..don't know if that's a good idea but, I wouldn't be overly suprised to see such a thing.
DougPaul
Well-known member
SPOT uses a digital message capability in the Globalstar satellite system to send its messages. (SPOT has no receive capability.) This system is one-way only and does not have enough bandwidth for voice. (Globalstar was having problems with their (satphone) voice capability--I don't know what its current status is.)
If you want 2-way voice, get a satphone (a good idea if you are going to be in a remote location for an extended period). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satphone
Doug
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,088
- Reaction score
- 162
I advocate charging for rescues. Either full cost, or if society determines that it wants to subsidize part of the cost, then so be it; equal proportion across all user groups.
Obvious frivolity should be hit with an additional fine, over and above the cost.
What we have now is a mess. Costs are or are not charged, depending on jurisdiction, opinion, user type, etc. In some cases (like Denali, the last I heard) "climbers" are hit with an extra fee up front to pay for everybody else's rescue based on perception, even though far more "hikers" than "climbers" end up being rescued.
Ideally this should be consistent. If I need to be rescued, whether I screwed up, or becasue of a pure "accident", I will willingly pay. Waste of everyone's time trying to agree on what's a screw up and what's an accident. To a bleeding heart, everything's an accident, and nobody's fault. To the American Alpine Club, everything is a screw up, and should have somehow been foreseen and prevented. Those positions will never reconcile; just charge everyone.
TCD
Obvious frivolity should be hit with an additional fine, over and above the cost.
What we have now is a mess. Costs are or are not charged, depending on jurisdiction, opinion, user type, etc. In some cases (like Denali, the last I heard) "climbers" are hit with an extra fee up front to pay for everybody else's rescue based on perception, even though far more "hikers" than "climbers" end up being rescued.
Ideally this should be consistent. If I need to be rescued, whether I screwed up, or becasue of a pure "accident", I will willingly pay. Waste of everyone's time trying to agree on what's a screw up and what's an accident. To a bleeding heart, everything's an accident, and nobody's fault. To the American Alpine Club, everything is a screw up, and should have somehow been foreseen and prevented. Those positions will never reconcile; just charge everyone.
TCD
TrishandAlex
New member
Good point, hadn't thought of that.
spider solo
New member
Doug , these things I know... think future... not what is... but what may be...
WhiteMTHike
Active member
I'm not at all surprised by this. I live in a neighborhood filled with YUPPIES. I can tell you that YUPPIES are the most self-centered and egotistical people around. Most see themselves as invincible and posses a hige sense of entitlement. Doesn't this article prove that?
YUPPIE hiking plan:
1. Go hiking.
2. Don't bother to learn how to use a compass.
3. Terrain maps? What are those?
4. Hiking guidebooks? Never heard of them. What is this AMC you speak of?
5. Big enough backpack? I don’t want to break a sweat.
6. Survival skills? Who needs those? Won't I find a Starbuck's on the trail?
Last but not least...
If I get into trouble I will just press the button on my Nuevo riche device. BTW, I got one before my neighbors did. I'll be the talk of the subdivision.
After I press my button rescue crews will come to rescue me. After all, they owe it to me.
====================================================
Pathetic. These people should just stay home.
YUPPIE hiking plan:
1. Go hiking.
2. Don't bother to learn how to use a compass.
3. Terrain maps? What are those?
4. Hiking guidebooks? Never heard of them. What is this AMC you speak of?
5. Big enough backpack? I don’t want to break a sweat.
6. Survival skills? Who needs those? Won't I find a Starbuck's on the trail?
Last but not least...
If I get into trouble I will just press the button on my Nuevo riche device. BTW, I got one before my neighbors did. I'll be the talk of the subdivision.
After I press my button rescue crews will come to rescue me. After all, they owe it to me.
====================================================
Pathetic. These people should just stay home.
Last edited:
Little Rickie
New member
It's a catch 22. The more we rescue them the more will go out and expect to be rescued. The more we will rescue.... The only way to break the cycle is to let people die unrescued, which is not an acceptable solution.
David Metsky
Well-known member
You'll find people with that attitude in every socio-economic strata. I has nothing to do with their job, or the car they drive, or their relative net worth to you.
You can say that about most people doing most any activity.
Tim Seaver
Well-known member
I have no doubt that the availability of devices that allow people to summon a rescue at a moments notice will result in some sensationalist stories like this, of people completely abusing them, multiple times, for idiotic reasons. And those people should be fined, without a doubt.
However, moving to a system where everybody is charged leads us right back to the same situation that the people actually performing the rescues are warning against: where the party in need of a rescue delays or decides against calling for help out of the fear of reimbursement, complicating and increasing the cost of any rescue efforts that are eventually rolled out.
No easy solution, but when I look at the many things my tax dollars are squandered on an immense scale, the amount that actually goes towards SAR is pretty much insignificant. I won't be losing sleep over this issue anytime soon.
That's about $892 per rescue, average. ( National Parks only)
However, moving to a system where everybody is charged leads us right back to the same situation that the people actually performing the rescues are warning against: where the party in need of a rescue delays or decides against calling for help out of the fear of reimbursement, complicating and increasing the cost of any rescue efforts that are eventually rolled out.
No easy solution, but when I look at the many things my tax dollars are squandered on an immense scale, the amount that actually goes towards SAR is pretty much insignificant. I won't be losing sleep over this issue anytime soon.
That's about $892 per rescue, average. ( National Parks only)
Last edited:
Little Rickie
New member
Who pays when an ambulance is called?
My point? When ambulance service became more available more people called them in place of driving to emergency.
This is going to be a fact of life, solutions will be far from perfect and a work in progress.
For the record I think some people should pay, the devil is in the details.
My point? When ambulance service became more available more people called them in place of driving to emergency.
This is going to be a fact of life, solutions will be far from perfect and a work in progress.
For the record I think some people should pay, the devil is in the details.
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,088
- Reaction score
- 162
I don't have heartburn over people facing a hard decision of whether to call for expensive rescue or try to self-rescue. We make lots of little decisions every time we go out; getting most of those "right" keeps us from having to make hard decisions. It's not reasonable to expect "outdoor" "wilderness" "mountain" type activities to be risk free. Even if it's the risk of having to make a hard decision.
But if society as a whole wants to subsidize rescue, that's fine with me. Then it should all be free. We'll never be able to all agree on who deserves free rescue, and who deserves to pay for it. Despite the obvious cases that make the news on either end of the spectrum, the bulk of real cases are somewhere in the middle.
TCD
But if society as a whole wants to subsidize rescue, that's fine with me. Then it should all be free. We'll never be able to all agree on who deserves free rescue, and who deserves to pay for it. Despite the obvious cases that make the news on either end of the spectrum, the bulk of real cases are somewhere in the middle.
TCD
griffin
Active member
It's possible to make people think twice about using a rescue beacon for non-emergency situations without impacting their use in a real emergency: require manufacturers to put warnings and instruction for proper use on the devices. And don't charge for rescue/evacuation, but apply penalties for misuse of the beacon (just as there are penalties for filing false police reports or abusing fire alarms).
If you really need help getting "out" - even if you got "in" due to your own stupidity, fine. But if you turn on the Bat-signal, and don't need rescue, or refuse it (as did the clowns in the Canyon), you get fined.
If you really need help getting "out" - even if you got "in" due to your own stupidity, fine. But if you turn on the Bat-signal, and don't need rescue, or refuse it (as did the clowns in the Canyon), you get fined.
Stash
Active member
A device than can do much good. Can it be used to save lives? Yes. In more ways than one. There's the obvious ability to notify/locate someone in distress. There's the added benefit of reducing the S in SAR which reduces costs and frees resources for other potential and inportant needs.
<RANT ON>
Is it possible/likely that they will be abused? Yes. But why categorize people in such a negative manner because someone abused a perfectly good tool?
Is it fair to categorize a group of people as "they" and indicate that they are idiots less entitled to whatever "we" have/do because "they" are not worthy? The world has become fragmented by negativity toward other groups. Certain groups don't get outwardly "picked" on for various PC reasons but how about if we look at the underlying reasons and avoid the negativity toward all the groups?
What's next? THEY only hike in <season x>. They're not worthy. THEY drove an SUV to the trail head. Not worthy. THEY are not from the right state. Not worthy.
Some people are more into a given activity that others. They learn more. They get better at it. They contribute more to the betterment of the activity. Some are into many different activities and do some because it's trendy or just sounds interesting. They may even detract from the activity by abusing something... maybe unknowingly..
Just maybe they honestly didn't realize they were causing a problem because they weren't brought up to think of others. Kind of like some might not realize that being called an idiot for not be as educated in activity as you are might just hurt.
<RANT OFF>
<RANT ON>
Is it possible/likely that they will be abused? Yes. But why categorize people in such a negative manner because someone abused a perfectly good tool?
Is it fair to categorize a group of people as "they" and indicate that they are idiots less entitled to whatever "we" have/do because "they" are not worthy? The world has become fragmented by negativity toward other groups. Certain groups don't get outwardly "picked" on for various PC reasons but how about if we look at the underlying reasons and avoid the negativity toward all the groups?
What's next? THEY only hike in <season x>. They're not worthy. THEY drove an SUV to the trail head. Not worthy. THEY are not from the right state. Not worthy.
Some people are more into a given activity that others. They learn more. They get better at it. They contribute more to the betterment of the activity. Some are into many different activities and do some because it's trendy or just sounds interesting. They may even detract from the activity by abusing something... maybe unknowingly..
Just maybe they honestly didn't realize they were causing a problem because they weren't brought up to think of others. Kind of like some might not realize that being called an idiot for not be as educated in activity as you are might just hurt.
<RANT OFF>
