'Yuppie 911' Calls Taxing Search and Rescue Teams

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: ElFenix
simple solution: bill them

Would you, as a rescue worker, find that acceptable? Risking your life to bring some thirsty hikers water in the middle of the night by helicopter for money? Money that you will never see but will just cover the cost of your mission?

The problem is that the devices are cheap to buy and free to use. You can either artifically inflate the cost of the device via taxation to deter most people from buying the device so they will feel less comfortable attempting excursions beyond their abilities. OR you can bill them for the services rendered. The problem with billing the people is that some will be happy to pay the bill to have a company chopper them water in the wilderness.

There is a third option... make the device cheap to buy, but in order to use the device, money must be placed in escrow with a company. If the device is used during the trip, the money in escrow will be transferred to the state/local agency to help pay for the cost of the rescue. Furthermore, when help arrives, you MUST leave with them. Otherwise, a second button press will get you no help (remember the boy who cried wolf). When the user returns from their trip without using the device, they simply call the company and the money will be transferred back (or a check will be cut, etc).

If that escrow account held, say, $1000 per person, I would need to be pretty well done for before pressing that button. In fact, I would tend to think twice before taking a trip that would necessitate a need for such a device. I think most people would tend to agree with me.

Some would argue that it is wrong to charge people money to save their lives. Personally I see nothing wrong with it in this circumstance. It is one thing not to charge for firefighting services as they are there to protect everyone (funded by community tax dollars). Why should "communal" tax dollars go to bring yuppies water in the grand canyon, or comfort the lady who got scared during a storm? The majority of the population ends up supporting a high cost service for a small minority of the population. I am not saying that all wilderness rescue services should charge a fee. However, I am saying that getting your ass bailed out of a jam that you got yourself into knowingly on purpose is not a RIGHT. With risk should come personal responsibility. We have the technology such that people no longer need to pay for their mistakes with their lives, but now they can pay for them with their wallets.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
simple solution: drop a bomb out of the helicopter instead of "rescuing" them.

Fixed.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Number1
I clicked on the link, saw that it was a fox news web site and concluded it was their article. My mistake.

But, is fox news not responsible for the content they post online?

Is there a disclaimer on the web page stating so?

Educate me.

Do they teach geography in the US?

It's said that war is god's way of teaching Americans geography. Perhaps we should invade Canada. :laugh:

 

[xanis]

People this idiotic should be put down. What the hell would have happened if there was a REAL emergency and the helicopters and S&R teams were tied up helping this fuckwits?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: Number1
I clicked on the link, saw that it was a fox news web site and concluded it was their article. My mistake.

But, is fox news not responsible for the content they post online?

Is there a disclaimer on the web page stating so?

Educate me.

Do they teach geography in the US?

It's said that war is god's way of teaching Americans geography. Perhaps we should invade Canada. :laugh:

but, but... we like our wars to be challenging. And what do they have for us? Snow?

Well, maybe we can invade them and install a new hat in it's place. Too damn drafty and unpredictable.

 

[KillerCharlie]

I believe we all have the right, to some extent, to make errors. No matter how experienced of a hiker/backpacker/mountaineer you are, you will make mistakes and could require a rescue. I therefore believe that rescues should be free. I live in Washington state, where such rescues are free (and performed mostly be volunteers anyway) - I've talked to some of them and they tend to agree. Some states aren't this way - you have to pay the bill, at least of the helicopter ride.


Obviously all the people in the article are just stupid though.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
I believe we all have the right, to some extent, to make errors. No matter how experienced of a hiker/backpacker/mountaineer you are, you will make mistakes and could require a rescue. I therefore believe that rescues should be free. I live in Washington state, where such rescues are free (and performed mostly be volunteers anyway) - I've talked to some of them and they tend to agree. Some states aren't this way - you have to pay the bill, at least of the helicopter ride.


Obviously all the people in the article are just stupid though.

Nothing is free.

 

[fleabag]

They should force people to go through survival training and whatnot before they're allowed to buy these beacons. They should also make the beacons not purchasable but only be rented and if your training is out of date, you need to get retrained again before you can carry the beacon.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: ElFenix
simple solution: bill them

Would you, as a rescue worker, find that acceptable? Risking your life to bring some thirsty hikers water in the middle of the night by helicopter for money? Money that you will never see but will just cover the cost of your mission?

Why not? Especially if my life is being put at risk (or simply my time wasted) by an idiot.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
I believe we all have the right, to some extent, to make errors. No matter how experienced of a hiker/backpacker/mountaineer you are, you will make mistakes and could require a rescue. I therefore believe that rescues should be free. I live in Washington state, where such rescues are free (and performed mostly be volunteers anyway) - I've talked to some of them and they tend to agree. Some states aren't this way - you have to pay the bill, at least of the helicopter ride.


Obviously all the people in the article are just stupid though.

Nothing is free.

You're right, it's mostly volunteers or military doing the rescues.

How is this different than any other general taxpayer service? Should we not use taxes for firefighters and police? We can make whoever's house on fire pay for the firefighters (they probably caused the fire anyway). We should make whoever caused a police call to pay for the service (if you get in an accident and have to call the police, you should pay for the police).

 

[Jeff7]

I can hear Shatner doing the narration for it.

"Next on Yuppie...911."

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
I believe we all have the right, to some extent, to make errors. No matter how experienced of a hiker/backpacker/mountaineer you are, you will make mistakes and could require a rescue. I therefore believe that rescues should be free. I live in Washington state, where such rescues are free (and performed mostly be volunteers anyway) - I've talked to some of them and they tend to agree. Some states aren't this way - you have to pay the bill, at least of the helicopter ride.


Obviously all the people in the article are just stupid though.

Nothing is free.

You're right, it's mostly volunteers or military doing the rescues.

How is this different than any other general taxpayer service? Should we not use taxes for firefighters and police? We can make whoever's house on fire pay for the firefighters (they probably caused the fire anyway). We should make whoever caused a police call to pay for the service (if you get in an accident and have to call the police, you should pay for the police).

Because firefighters and police protect the general populace, and the general populace pays taxes. Sure, you could argue that there is disparity, and people who make more tend to pay more taxes. However, on the whole, people receive equal benefit from those sorts of services.

For these wilderness rescue services, a large majority of the population will likely never go hiking. So, this large majority is supporting a very high cost service to support a small minority, which obviously is unfair for the majority population. The right to "make a mistake" is not guaranteed by law or the Constitution. With risk should come personal responsibility. We have the technology such that people no longer need to pay for their mistakes with their lives, but now they can pay for them with their wallets.

Also, if you want to draw a parallel, I pay $50 a year to the city of Houston so the police will go check on my house if the alarm goes off. Whats more, this $50 only buys me 2 false alarms per year. Any more than that, I get "fined" (aka charged) for additional false alarms. If I have no false alarms, I lose the money. Basically I am paying extra on top of my taxes for a service that pushes the button and calls for help. How is that any more fair than charging for wilderness rescue?

 

[tw1164]

They should make the device so it can only be used once. I think that would give people pause before hitting the button for stupid reasons.

 

[Svnla]

I believe if there were some true emergencies that were unforseen, then it is ok but to contact emergency rescue because the water was salty or it was too cold/wet or some stupid reasons or due to the stupidity/lack of skills/logic deserve a big hit on the wallet.

 

[bignateyk]

I think that rescues should be free. They should add a tax of 2-3x the cost of the device at the time of purchase to 1) offset the cost of rescue missions, and 2) deter so many people from buying them.

Also, I think that anyone who uses the device to be rescued should be judged as to whether it was legitimate. If not, then they should pay the total cost of the rescue mission.

 

[AMCRambler]

$500 bucks wouldn't be enough. Think about it. For $500 you could get a rescue helicopter to pick you up from the middle of no-where and take you back to civilization.

Translation: helicopter transport for $500 a trip.

 

[krunchykrome]

I think AMEX Platinum card holders can call a number if they are in an emergency andneed to be evacuated, and AMEX will come and get them. Anyone hear about this feature?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: OutHouse

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: ElFenix
simple solution: bill them

Would you, as a rescue worker, find that acceptable? Risking your life to bring some thirsty hikers water in the middle of the night by helicopter for money? Money that you will never see but will just cover the cost of your mission?

no need to bill if it's not a waste of rescue services.

There should be clear penalties for abusing emergency systems. You can land yourself in some real trouble if you abuse the 911 services with needless calls.

Don't bill anyone until you discover their call for help was unnecessary. Accidents will happen, just like people accidentally call 911. (trust me, it happens. almost did it but hung up before the first ring ) Making something that is simply pushing a button on a device, firstly, sounds like a retarded manufacturer. Secondly, will definitely make accidents guaranteed to occur.

If rescue services arrive and they are pissed at how retarded it was (and the situation is able to be defined as frivolous and unnecessary with no doubt), then bill the bastards. If it's an accident, or on the shady border of "well, it was necessary panic in their eyes, just not a realized threat", then let them go and remind them to use their heads next time. Keep records, and if they do something stupid again after being warned, bam, they get a state bill in which non payment results in a warrant for their arrest.

this device is not like 911 at all. dispatching a chopper and flight crew to remote areas is not even in the same boat as calling 911.

reading comprehension fail.

911 is simple. Abusing 911 can bring penalties.
Rescue dispatch is complicated, costly, and introduces a lot of risks. Abusing rescue services should bring about serious penalties.

really? wow thanks for the insightful information!! i never would have a guess a flight crew dispatched to a high country rescue is more complicated and costly than sending a fucking cop to my front door. :roll: who would have thunk it.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: tw1164
They should make the device so it can only be used once. I think that would give people pause before hitting the button for stupid reasons.

now that is a good idea. like a flair gun but with only one flair.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
I believe we all have the right, to some extent, to make errors. No matter how experienced of a hiker/backpacker/mountaineer you are, you will make mistakes and could require a rescue. I therefore believe that rescues should be free. I live in Washington state, where such rescues are free (and performed mostly be volunteers anyway) - I've talked to some of them and they tend to agree. Some states aren't this way - you have to pay the bill, at least of the helicopter ride.


Obviously all the people in the article are just stupid though.

Nothing is free.

You're right, it's mostly volunteers or military doing the rescues.

How is this different than any other general taxpayer service? Should we not use taxes for firefighters and police? We can make whoever's house on fire pay for the firefighters (they probably caused the fire anyway). We should make whoever caused a police call to pay for the service (if you get in an accident and have to call the police, you should pay for the police).

imagine yourself as a mayor of a town in charge of the budget of the town. how would you answer that question??

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: ElFenix
simple solution: bill them

Would you, as a rescue worker, find that acceptable? Risking your life to bring some thirsty hikers water in the middle of the night by helicopter for money? Money that you will never see but will just cover the cost of your mission?

I don't see how it's any different from firefighters putting out a blazing house and rescuing the fool owner who fell asleep with a lit cigarette.

Or the police sending you a bill if your home alarm falsely goes off.

but it is on par with driving through a flooded area and getting billed for the rescue, which will happen pretty much anywhere you live. i always giggle when i see the news coverage of those and the news casters mention the billing thing.

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
I think that rescues should be free. They should add a tax of 2-3x the cost of the device at the time of purchase to 1) offset the cost of rescue missions, and 2) deter so many people from buying them.

Also, I think that anyone who uses the device to be rescued should be judged as to whether it was legitimate. If not, then they should pay the total cost of the rescue mission.

This. I also like the mandatory exit idea. If you have to hit the button you are going with the rescue crew and leaving the area. The only exception being if medical emergency somehow prevents it.
I can see where these devices have real merit. I have a friend that was hiking in the mountains several years back. One of their group lost their footing and suffered a 20 foot fall. It took one of them 90 minutes to get to a point that a cell phone had just enough signal to call 911. It was 3 hours total before rescue medics could get to him.

 

[lxskllr]

There shouldn't be any rescues. If you're more than a mile from a paved road or house, you're on your own. When EMS gets a distress beacon, and it's outside of those parameters, it should be ignored.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: silverpig
I have a friend who volunteers for a search and rescue team. They used to be free, then they started charging a few grand for their rescues.

They learned a few things from that mistake and now they are free again.

What they found was when people knew that it was going to cost them a few grand to get rescued, they waited until the last possible moment to call for help. Instead of calling for help on day 1 after getting lost, they'd try to get out of it themselves, often getting even more lost. They'd run through all their food and water and then call for help. The rescuers were then under immense pressure to go out in bad weather and take inordinate risks to save these people in just a matter of hours, when ideally they would have up to 2 days.

It sucks, but it should be free for the people who really do need it, and so the rescuers aren't given 12 hours to make a rescue.

Excellent point.

Maybe implement a graduated fine system?
First call - $100
Second call - $1000
Third call - Full cost of rescue operation

Nobody's going to risk their life over $100 (maybe), but it will help deter stupidity.

No penalty -> no accountability

For those advocating a high tax or restricting use of the "911" devices: How many are sold versus how many false alarms are there?

 

[911paramedic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
simple solution: bill them

Being a former SAR manager for the Sheriff's Dept., that's exactly what happens when they get into trouble due to their own negligence. The legit searches/rescues don't cost anything.