Rescuers fear "Yuppie 911"

[cbcbd]

I'm sure we'll have at least a few of these "fake" rescue calls using plbs every year. Unfortunately what we can't track are the users who have them, got themselves in a situation where "things got difficult" and decided to self-rescue.

Having said that, I'm not sure I would even like trusting myself with a plb. Everyone has a comfort threshold and I believe that it is raised every time you get out and especially when you get yourself into positions that make you uncomfortable. I'm sure there are non-imminent-death situations I put myself into now that would've freaked me out as a newbie, probably seducing me into pushing the big red button if I had one to push.

One (wo)man's salty water is another's broken leg.

 

[RoySwkr]

As I recall, the AMC opposed the previous incarnation of a hiker's license because they were afraid tired people would feel they had a right to be carried out, and the AMC would do much of the carrying for little money.

I think there is a technological solution available - limit distress beacons for auto-trigger situations like crashed planes where triggering the beacon may well mean nobody is available to talk. Make others including hikers use a device with voice and text capabilities although in areas with poor reception they may be degraded. Then like 911 calls the dispatcher can sort by severity, or the chopper once overhead may get a better connection and avoid the risk of needlessly landing in the canyon. I'm sure a frequency can be found - OnStar did.

 

[Spiny Norman]

Don't they bill for all rescues and recoveries in the French Alps? Sounds like the solution to me. If you call then you are billed. Double if its for a broken espresso maker.

 

[DougPaul]

Doug , these things I know... think future... not what is... but what may be...

You don't have to wait--satphones exist now.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

I think there is a technological solution available - limit distress beacons for auto-trigger situations like crashed planes where triggering the beacon may well mean nobody is available to talk.

What machine can tell the difference between an skier's ordinary crash or one with a broken leg. Can a machine tell when you are hypothermic, dehydrated, etc?

BTW, ELTs (aircraft) and EPIRBs (nautical) occasionally send false alarms too.

Make others including hikers use a device with voice and text capabilities although in areas with poor reception they may be degraded. Then like 911 calls the dispatcher can sort by severity, or the chopper once overhead may get a better connection and avoid the risk of needlessly landing in the canyon. I'm sure a frequency can be found - OnStar did.

OnStar uses the cellphone networks to communicate. So you might as well just carry a cellphone when hiking. (FWIW, I can tell you the 911 operators can handle backcountry distress calls...)

Doug

 

[Little Rickie]

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.

No nibbles?

Have insurance companies cover the cost and they will sort out negligence quite effectively.

 

[griffin]

No nibbles?

Have insurance companies cover the cost and they will sort out negligence quite effectively.

Who pays when the fire department is called?

The police?*

Given the current debate in Washington, and the examples we've seen of what lengths insurance companies will sometimes go to in order to avoid payouts (rape and domestic violence are "pre-existing conditions"?), I"m not sure determinations of negligence by insurance companies would be seen as more fair or reasonable than those made by F&G.

Not pretending I have a better idea.


(*not a bad example in this case, because I do believe there can be penalties involved if, say, you call 911 because McD's gave you the wrong change or forgot to put cheese on your hockey pucks)

 

[Little Rickie]

Given the current debate in Washington, and the examples we've seen of what lengths insurance companies will sometimes go to in order to avoid payouts (rape and domestic violence are "pre-existing conditions"?), I"m not sure determinations of negligence by insurance companies would be seen as more fair or reasonable than those made by F&G.

Not pretending I have a better idea.)

Neither am I but we would have a definition based on economics which would sort out the majority of abuse.

 

[RoySwkr]

What machine can tell the difference between an skier's ordinary crash or one with a broken leg. Can a machine tell when you are hypothermic, dehydrated, etc?

There will be instances when you don't trigger your device either because a situation occurs either too suddenly or too gradually to notice, just as there are now. The difference is that most "nuisance" calls you will be able to communicate so they will have a better idea what help to send if any.

BTW, ELTs (aircraft) and EPIRBs (nautical) occasionally send false alarms too.

Yup, and they have to check them out. Isn't there some penalty if the owner did so negligently?

OnStar uses the cellphone networks to communicate. So you might as well just carry a cellphone when hiking. (FWIW, I can tell you the 911 operators can handle backcountry distress calls...)

Maybe adequate for cars but not backcountry, you want something that satellites will pick up to give better coverage.

 

[bristlecone]

SPOT offers rescue cost insurance when you buy it. It isn't expensive and I did get it. Don't know much more about it, but maybe it should be mandated with these devices?

The big problem these devices present (as discussed above) is that the rescuer does not have the chance to assess the situation as they could with a cell phone call. Hence, education of the user could help.

As for YUPPIES, I'll just say that being (sort of) young, living in a streetcar suburb and spending most of my week working at a profession doesn't prevent me from learning and practicing outdoor skills, preparing myself, and making responsible decisions... or so I like to think.

 

[bobmak]

When I was in South America I opted to buy rescue insurance since they billed you for any rescue costs that incurred. I don't remember how much it was now but I seem to recall it was relatively inexpensive. I would have no problem seeing that in the States. I am all for SAR groups to collect some sort of fee for the job they perform. As for myself, I doubt very much that I would use a rescue beacon. I usually hike alone and rarely even bring a cell phone with me. The only powered device I bring (other than a head lamp) is my MP3 player so I can listen to books on tape to pass the evenings in the tent. If that goes south on me while on a trip it's no big deal.

 

[TomD]

This is not a new problem. The first guy to use a PLB was arrested the second time he used it when he went back to get his gear a few weeks later and decided he was too tired to hike out. This happened in upstate NY. The first time, he had canoed somewhere and got stranded in a snowstorm, got rescued then decided he wanted his gear. He was unprepared for that trip as well and the SAR people were not amused.

Perhaps a mandatory annual license fee when you buy one that goes into a rescue fund is the answer. SPOT is by subscription, so the fee would be tacked onto the subscription price. With a PLB, not sure how you could regulate it, perhaps by charging an annual license fee and charging you for a rescue if you haven't paid your annual fee. Kind of like the risk you take not putting a quarter in the parking meter.

A friend of mine was killed on a SAR mission while piloting a helo that went down in bad weather. I do not have a lot of sympathy for yahoos who needlessly put others at risk.

 

[sweeper]

We've always had yahoos in the mountains, one of the reasons I don't hike Washington or Franconia loop in the summer, waaay too many of them.

Putting a Yuppie 911 in these peoples hands is asking to bankrupt SAR groups.

I do a lot of solo hiking and have thought about getting one but haven't concerned about the fact I might push it because I have it.

There should be penalties for pushing the button for creature comforts, and they should be imprinted on the cover.

 

[Little Rickie]

SPOT offers rescue cost insurance when you buy it. It isn't expensive and I did get it. Don't know much more about it, but maybe it should be mandated with these devices?

So insurance is an option. Does anyone know how the SPOT insurance works and can anyone buy it?

Check it out. http://www.geosalliance.com/sar/

Is it worth it and will they pay?

Seems very reasonable to me.

 

[sierra]

You can say these devices are different then cell phones but I would dissagree in a minute. When I started hiking there where no cell phones in the backcountry and that was hiking, yes real hiking, go ahead and argue all you want, hiking with a cell is easier then hiking without one. Back in the day you had 2 choices, rescue yourself, or send a party member for help. Man do I miss those day's. Even people on this board readily talk about when they would call for help, look to each his own, but the "average hiker today" is way softer then back then, nothing anyone says will convince me otherwise, but Im sure youll try.
P.S. I had a bad week at work, seen any polar bears around?

 

[Chip]

Man do I miss those day's...

No one is requiring you to carry a cell phone or to help anyone else who is.

Do what you want.

 

[David Metsky]

but the "average hiker today" is way softer then back then, nothing anyone says will convince me otherwise,

I miss the Lewis and Clark Expedition days, too.

 

[bristlecone]

So insurance is an option. Does anyone know how the SPOT insurance works and can anyone buy it?

Check it out. http://www.geosalliance.com/sar/

Is it worth it and will they pay?

Seems very reasonable to me.

I signed up when I bought the SPOT - $8/yr for up to 2 rescues / yr, up to $50,000 each. The big question is how the exclusions are interpreted:

PLEASE NOTE This benefit does not apply if:-
a) your situation is caused by circumstances such as a forecast change of weather conditions, which could reasonably have been anticipated at the date you started your trip
b) you have NOT made adequate provision of resources or training or competence needed to complete your planned trip.

I would think that they would have a strong case for not covering you if, for example, the state determined that you were negligent and decided to charge your for your rescue because of it. (Then in a classic stroke of insurance, you would not have it when you needed it.)

Point (a) could be problematic - if I fall and slide on snow that became icy when clouds moved in, and need rescue, shouldn't I have anticipated that the snow would become icy with a forecast for increasing clouds?

I haven't heard any experiences with this insurance, maybe some have?

 

[--M.]

Those loopholes, while eminently reasonable, seem wide enough to drive a non-coverage through. Have there been any cases to study?

 

[Neil]

IIRC insurance companies have 2 functions.

1. To take your money
2. To keep your money