Winter Trail Running and Negligence

[jrcinnh]

Seems a weirdly general law to use when there is a specific law for their actions. Perhaps law enforcement wanted something with criminal bite versus just money.

 

[Ann]

jrcinnh said:

They don't fine you, they attempt to recover rescue costs. It's supposed to be a deterent to reckless behavior. You can buy a Hike Safe card to raise the bar from negligent to reckless or intentional.

My questions were rhetorical. My point was if it’s to offset rescue costs anyone who needs rescue should be charged. The way things are going now, nothing seems to sink in and the vast number of hikers who are dying are not those who typically have enough gear to spend an uncomfortable night out. The big bucks rescues lately have turned into recovery efforts sometimes lasting days.

 

[TCD]

We have had many threads on this general topic through the years.

There is a need to try to recover some costs. There is also a need to try to incentivize people to be better prepared.

Of course there are positives and negatives to charging for rescue. Any proposed "solution will be met with strong disagreement from both "far ends" of the spectrum of opinion: Those that believe in a high punitive charge for a variety of reasons, and those that believe that all rescues must remain free for a variety of reasons.

To your point, I would propose that everyone who gets rescued should be charged a fixed amount. The disadvantages of the "fixed amount" are: The amount may seem like a lot to some people, but not seem like much to others; and perception of "unfairness" when "minor" incidents are charged the same as "major" incidents. The advantage of the "fixed amount" is that it removes all the contestable issues of negligence, recklessness, preparedness, fitness, etc.. No one needs to try to judge those. And rescues are less likely to create expensive court battles with protagonists challenging each other's judgement.

A challenge is setting the fixed amount. It must be high enough to "sting" and disincentivize reckless behavior, and maybe make people think. And possibly recover some material portion of rescue costs. But it must not be so high that people do not call for rescue when they truly need it, or so high that it bankrupts people. $250? $500? $1000?

 

[NH2112]

Put ‘em to work, they can pay off their rescue costs by doing trail maintenance, picking up trash and painting signs, toilets, emptying trash cans at trailhead parking, cleaning & maintaining huts, etc. I’m thinking 2 16-hour weekends per month, for 6 months (May-October.) Issue a citation that carries the same weight as a traffic ticket, you can send it back with a nolo plea and report as ordered on the ticket or you can contest and go before the judge with the likelihood of monetary fine as well. Out-of-staters would have the option of choosing the fine instead of traveling twice per month. Failure to show would result in an arrest warrant.

 

[B the Hiker]

I took some time off last week and backpacked with a friend up the Garfield Ridge Trail to the campsite, then over Guyot, and finally down over the Bonds.

While waiting for my buddy at Lincoln Woods to spot cars, a young woman came up to the car parked next to mine. Late 20s / early 30s, trail runners, tights, and light top with a runner's vest. I asked if was about to go out, and she explained she had just come back (9:50am) from Owlshead. "How long did it take you?" I asked. She looked at her watch and said 3 hours, 15 minutes.

We saw lightly-equipped folks everywhere. As we were coming out, a ranger asked two young women coming back from Owlshead if they had enough gear to spend seven hours not moving until a rescue team arrived. He was very polite, but it seems like trying to build a sandcastle on the beach at low tide.

Anyhow, there was a rescue litter sitting just off the trail below Bondcliff. A grim reminder left there after the trail runner was helicoptered out.

 

[DayTrip]

A challenge is setting the fixed amount. It must be high enough to "sting" and disincentivize reckless behavior, and maybe make people think. And possibly recover some material portion of rescue costs. But it must not be so high that people do not call for rescue when they truly need it, or so high that it bankrupts people. $250? $500? $1000?

I read an interesting article several years ago from I believe Sweden about this regarding traffic citations. They either had implemented or were implementing a % based system so that the "pain" of the ticket was proportional for everyone and would discourage all income classes from speeding, parking tickets, etc. not just low income people. So if you were pulled over for doing 70mph in a 55mph zone it would be say 3% of your monthly income versus a set $$ amount. Not sure of the exact %'s, the citations involved, etc. but I thought that was a pretty interesting idea. Has some issues too but overall I thought it was a good concept.

 

[skiguy]

I read an interesting article several years ago from I believe Sweden about this regarding traffic citations. They either had implemented or were implementing a % based system so that the "pain" of the ticket was proportional for everyone and would discourage all income classes from speeding, parking tickets, etc. not just low income people. So if you were pulled over for doing 70mph in a 55mph zone it would be say 3% of your monthly income versus a set $$ amount. Not sure of the exact %'s, the citations involved, etc. but I thought that was a pretty interesting idea. Has some issues too but overall I thought it was a good concept.

These days in the U.S. with the political climate we have I doubt this would go.

 

[DayTrip]

These days in the U.S. with the political climate we have I doubt this would go.

No, nothing goes now. All we have is red obstructing blue and blue obstructing red. Fixing problems, innovative thinking and compromising doesn't happen anymore.

 

[Grey J]

No, nothing goes now. All we have is red obstructing blue and blue obstructing red. Fixing problems, innovative thinking and compromising doesn't happen anymore.

Any substantive reply to this post will likely result in the thread being shut down but suffice to say that one of the above does most of the obstructing even in the rare occurrences when folks from both sides try to get together to solve problems. It is only one party that routinely threatens to shut down the government. There is no equivalency here.

 

[dug]

Any substantive reply to this post will likely result in the thread being shut down but suffice to say that one of the above does most of the obstructing even in the rare occurrences when folks from both sides try to get together to solve problems. It is only one party that routinely threatens to shut down the government. There is no equivalency here.

Keep telling yourself that

 

[TomK]

It is only one party that routinely threatens to shut down the government.

Well, yes, the *other* party.

TomK

 

[peakbagger]

Any substantive reply to this post will likely result in the thread being shut down

Yes, I expect it could roll into an interesting political debate but your speculation is correct.

The thread is still open for discussion of the original intent of the thread but it will be shutdown if it continues on the general political direction.

 

[maineguy]

There is no shortage of idiot boaters out there, yet the Coast Guard does not charge for rescue in emergency situations. They consider it part of their job. Boaters can purchase some kind of private insurance that will assist them in non emergency situations.

 

[jrcinnh]

I'll stay away from the politics, cause I already know all correct answers.

One argument against fees or fines as a deterent, they can have the side effect of delaying calls for help. You're not going to call F&G when in just a little trouble cause you don't want to risk penalty. You're waiting until all hope is lost and a risky expensive rescue is needed, when you are dying, cost is irrelevant.
The Coast Guard is a good counterpoint. Obviously it's national versus local which dilutes the cost, plus they have to be out there anyway to guard the coast against ruskies. But they also impose safety rules on all boaters, life jackets, emergency rafts, safety inspections, flares and big fines if you're not equipped.
You want to make hiking rescues free but gather funds by fining under-equipped hikers, randomly detained and inspected?

 

[Ear Drum]

...
Anyhow, there was a rescue litter sitting just off the trail below Bondcliff. A grim reminder left there after the trail runner was helicoptered out.

This litter was mentioned in a trip report at https://www.newenglandtrailconditions.com/nh/viewreport.php?entryid=70292 -- copied here:


Bondcliff (attempt), NH
incoln Woods Trail, Bondcliff Trail
Thursday, February 1, 2024

Note: This is not a trail report, but a posting to respond to a request from a Fish and Game Conservation Officer whom I saw at an official function this morning

During the recent tragic search and rescue mission in the area a rescue litter was left by the "Hillary Step" on the Bondcliff Trail at treeline just west of the summit of Bondcliff. PLEASE LEAVE IT THERE! The Conservation Officer was concerned that a well-meaning person might try to bring the litter back down the trail or otherwise attend to it. Fish and Game will be sending a team in later this season to bring the litter to a suitable location to stage for any future incidents in the area that might benefit from its use. Thank you!!
PeterC

 

[sierra]

Two points, I never cared for the Hikesafe card and how it's structured, but hey, if people buy it I guess it's something . I have always advocated that anyone that gets rescued should be charged, I understand the nuances that come along with that, but you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. If mandatory charging caused some not to call for help, than I guess they can always self rescue as a cheaper option. Mountaineering comes with some danger, maybe it's time that message gets out a few times on Social Media.

 

[dug]

Two points, I never cared for the Hikesafe card and how it's structured, but hey, if people buy it I guess it's something . I have always advocated that anyone that gets rescued should be charged, I understand the nuances that come along with that, but you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. If mandatory charging caused some not to call for help, than I guess they can always self rescue as a cheaper option. Mountaineering comes with some danger, maybe it's time that message gets out a few times on Social Media.

The "Search" part of the Search and Rescue is the most expensive.

 

[sierra]

The "Search" part of the Search and Rescue is the most expensive.

Not sure what that even means.

 

[Cartophile]

Sales of the Hikesafe cards bring in a surprising (to me) amount of revenue for NHF&G, which seems to me to be, by itself, a good reason to purchase one for yourself. The sales do, indeed, subsidize rescues in general. https://newhampshirebulletin.com/briefs/the-cost-of-new-hampshire-search-and-rescue-missions/

 

[Mike P.]

Allow me to put my common sense hat on.

People have different understanding of what "a reasonable person" is.
Let Fish and Game to judge this hiker and sue his estate.

Which would be what your defense lawyer thinks the juries' understanding of a "reasonable person" understanding is. The likelihood of getting a jury made up of climbers, winter trail runners and base jumpers is very low.