Idiots!!!

[highlander]

I have been reading on BBC site how an ice climber had to be rescued by 50
people, these people put thier lives on the line for these idiots who do not pay heed to weather forecasts. I am not saying all who do hill walking or rock climbing are irresponsible but they should be made to take out a insurance policy incase they need rescued. I remember a few years ago about a lot of girls from an english school having to be rescued and all the mountain teams got was a lot of abuse from them and said it was thier jobs to come and get them. If they had to take out insurance policys it might make them think of who's lives they are putting at risk. What do you think?

[Bobinovich]

I'm all for insurance policies for those whos actions may put anothers life at risk. It's one thing to know what you are doing and being well prepared, but we hear stories every other day of ill-equipped people/groups having to call out the emergency services.

The police, ambulance and fire brigade are all paid positions, but those who risk their lives to help others such as RNLI, mountain rescue, etc. are not (AFAIK) on a permanent payroll, but are still willing to down tools and put thier lives on the line to assist.

Maybe a hefty insurance policy would make some think twice about heading out unprepared.

[Kenn]

Could n't agree more highlander.
Whilst many are sensible in the pursuit of their hobbies / sports many are so naive it beggars belief.
May be some one will be able to tell me if there is a move afoot to make it compulsary that those engaging in dangerous pursuits will be obliged to be insured, I remember it being mooted but don't know if it ever became law.
In the mean time I cannot express enough my admiration for the rescue teams who are volunteers and as you say, put their lives at risk because of the folly of others.

[philupmaboug]

Absolutely agree, insurance policy and some sort of emergency GPS system that you can activate in time of need. They could even make it part of the walk or climb that people must hire these from the mountain rescue in the area which would also boost thier funds.

[golach]

When I go abroad on holiday, I have to pay for insurance and if I wish to take part in any extreme sport activities then my insurance premium goes up accordingly, so if you are a mountaineer, skier, ice climber, yachtsman, or take part in any of those pastimes that carry the slightest risks, then why not have insurance?

[NickInTheNorth]

Those who set out on hazardous activities of any sort without correct equipment or proper preparation I have very little sympathy with.

However if someone sets out with proper planning, correct equipment and the requisite knowledge for the task at hand, and then due to unforeseen circumstances find themselves in trouble, I for one would level no criticism at them.

In general the volunteer rescue services tend to be individuals that like to participate in similar activities to those in which the rescued require the help of the rescuers. Often the feeling of that could have been me is upper most in the minds of the rescuer.

Without challenge and excitement life becomes tedious, and we are all the poorer for it.

But all challenges should be properly planned, equipped, led etc.

Compulsory Insurance - well to my mind it benefits no-one but the insurance companies and their shareholders. As long as there are individuals willing to provide these services to fellow adventurers simply for the reward of knowing that they have made a difference then long may it continue.

Anyone that ever benefits from the use of such a service should however take a long hard look at their own personal situation and make whatever amounts to a generous donation in either time, money or effort to helping to raise funds for the benefit of the organisation providing the service.

[badger]

Wish I had your faith in human nature Nick but sadly I think it's the ones who go out unprepared that are the least likely to contribute when they are rescued, and it's the conscientious ones who would probably take out insurance.

The only way would be to "fine" anyone who took unnecessary risks and put the lives of rescuers in danger or caused unreasonable expenditure in the rescue. Maybe if that was publicised there would not be so many of these incidents. If I was related to someone who has to go and rescue idiots, I'd be very angry.

[cuddlepop]

I too think they should be made to take out insurance policy's.
Your expected to take insurance out for everything else so why not accessing the hills.

You'd have to word it properly as I wouldn't want to take it out just for walking my dogs up to the waterfalls at Slig.

They'd have to be some sort of intent....

[NickInTheNorth]

Wish I had your faith in human nature Nick but sadly I think it's the ones who go out unprepared that are the least likely to contribute when they are rescued, and it's the conscientious ones who would probably take out insurance.


I don't have that sort of faith in human nature - that's why I say should.

However I still don't believe in compulsory insurance. Given the nature of the activities the premiums are likely to be fairly hefty, and make make some of the last inexpensive activities prohibitively expensive for many that enjoy them.

Knowing members of various rescue services, and having been involved myself I don't think you would find much support for such a move amongst those bodies.

[bluelady]

am I wrong in thinking that schools have to get consent forms before pupils take any trips outside of school for insurance purposes? If so then the insurance should pay out something towards the mountain rescues time and resources.If its not the case then schools should have this in place given the number of pupils involved. And yes if someone is doing high risk activities, they should have insurance. There should be a law that says any person/s undertaking such activities without taking the necessary precautions, will be liable to pay a fine towards the cost of the rescue. Like the skiers who go off piste and cause avalanches etc. I watched a programme recently on the mountain rescuers down in Aviemore, what brillant and brave men. its not right that the mountain rescue and RNLI have to fundraise for their resources, some of the wasted money from the lottery could be well spent here and they should become part of the emergency services and on the payrole as retainers.

[Boozeburglar]

It would be practically impossible to enforce mandatory insurance due to the wide spread access to the hills, though it could be encouraged through all official parties involved in the industry.

It would be slightly more easy to legislate for boat owners/hirers, as you have a vessel that can be pinpointed.

Amazes me that totally inexperienced sailors can take to the Pentland Firth, for instance, carrying passengers.

[highlander]

If you need to be rescued at the moment, who pays? you do. Tax payers have to fork out for helicopters, crew, although the rescuers are volunteers, they still have to be given donations by the public to equip them. Farmers for example have to have public liability, so i dont see where the problem is for people to pay for those who have risked thier lives to save them. Nick please explain why the rescue services would not be in favour of this?

[badger]

Most insurance policies have lots of small print giving the company the chance not to pay out. Maybe the answer with this is a sort of reverse set of clauses so that everyone taking part in possibly dangerous activities had to take out insurance with a minimal premium, but if they then claimed and were found not to have taken sensible precautions the company would pay out but immediately demand a much higher premium for any future activities. If nothing else, it might make the idiots think more carefully in future.

Alternatively perhaps anyone who ventures out stupidly should simply be presented with the bill for rescuing them including any compensation for rescuers who are injured in the process.

None of this would stop people who genuinely want to take risks or explore as all they would have to do is take, and follow, advice from the experts. I see absolutely no reason why voluntary organisations should risk life, limb and money for "idiots".

[NickInTheNorth]

If you need to be rescued at the moment, who pays? you do. Tax payers have to fork out for helicopters, crew, although the rescuers are volunteers, they still have to be given donations by the public to equip them. Farmers for example have to have public liability, so i dont see where the problem is for people to pay for those who have risked thier lives to save them. Nick please explain why the rescue services would not be in favour of this?

How do you think that the voluntary rescue services would benefit if people had compulsory insurance? By what mechanism would the funds flow from the insurance company to the volunteers that turn out at great personal risk?

[golach]

How do you think that the voluntary rescue services would benefit if people had compulsory insurance? By what mechanism would the funds flow from the insurance company to the volunteers that turn out at great personal risk?
You are so right Nick, I do not know how the system would work, but in this incident 60 personnel from various organisations were involved in this rescue of one 61 year old individual, they used a lot of equipment and time, not to mention their own saftey. As Highlander stated who footed the bill for most of this, us the tax payer, or the persons who donate to the charites who help the rescue services.

[NickInTheNorth]

The tax payers pay for the RAF certainly. They buy the helicopters, the pay the crew, etc.

These SAR helicopters then provide rescue services to the public when not involved in military operations. This provides good solid real life training opportunities.

The volunteer services are funded by charitable donations - which people make voluntarily. The service is provided by volunteers.

If there where compulsory insurance either the insurance companies would create their own rescue services, or they would attempt to contract the existing services to carry out rescues on their behalf.

Either way the current volunteer service would be taken under bureaucratic control. Cost would become an issue. Health and safety would become paramount.

The only people that would suffer would be a) folk that wish to follow adventurous pursuits b) the volunteer rescuers who gladly provide the current fantastic service free of charge.

[wifie]

Have to say on first look I would have said yes to the insurance option here but listening to the arguements it would seem that that would have a negative effect. Also if the person undertaking the dangerous pursuit is stupid enough to go off ill prepared then does anyone think they would actually think of taking out the insurance? I think it would be good if the conscience of the rescued person got the better of them and they undertook fundraising or gave a good donation to the rescue service involved.

[Dog-eared]

I agree totally with Nick.
I'm sure the RAF sees real life rescues as valuable training for their crews,who would otherwise have to burn the same fuel doing training on simulated rescues.
There does however seem to be a bit of a problem with people coming up to the Highlands and being unable to cope with the sudden onset of Arctic conditions and high winds that theyr'e not used to experiencing in milder latitudes..

[NickInTheNorth]

there are also plenty of folk that seem incapable of crossing the road without getting knocked down.

People drive and need rescued from snow covered motorways.

If every action we took in life that offers any risk required insurance we may as well curl up and die.

[grumpyhippo]

The volunteer services are funded by charitable donations - which people make voluntarily. The service is provided by volunteers.

If there where compulsory insurance either the insurance companies would create their own rescue services, or they would attempt to contract the existing services to carry out rescues on their behalf.

Either way the current volunteer service would be taken under bureaucratic control.

I must agree with you Nick. I seem to recall a proposal to fund rescue teams from central funds a few years ago (about ten years ago I think) and the teams themselves were mostly against it for the very reason that they set their own standards and there was not a bureaucracy getting in the way of sensible practical solutions.


The present setup provides what is a Scottish Mountain Area Rescue Teams service. If the bureaucrats got involved it would almost inevitably become a Scottish Highland Initiative for Terrestrial Explorers service.

[highlander]

Yes i can see the RAF get good training out of this exercises, but at the end of the day, i would far prefer the my tax go to help the forces, who DO have to put thier lives on the line for us all.
I like the idea that badger put forward, present them with a bill for rescuing the ones who have not bothered to equip themselves properly, to compensate the rescuers, surely they have to take time off thier own jobs to see to the "idiots", who pays for them having to take time off?
Nick cos is an issue already, as well as health and safety, for the people who take the time to go to rescue them.

[Dog-eared]

I wonder if the people criticising the Mountain Rescue Services have the same attitude towards the Fire Brigade ?

[cuddlepop]

The present setup provides what is a Scottish Mountain Area Rescue Teams service. If the bureaucrats got involved it would almost inevitably become a Scottish Highland Initiative for Terrestrial Explorers service.[/quote]


Brilliant grumpy love the capitals;)

Seriously though should people who knowing go out and climb our mountains when there has been a specific warning to stay away be accountable, if they induce a rescue that puts others in danger of their lives.:confused

[NickInTheNorth]

highlander - as I said before, how do you see the involvement of insurance companies benefiting the rescue services?

Virtually all boats that put to sea have insurance. The RNLI get no benefit from this.

[golach]

there are also plenty of folk that seem incapable of crossing the road without getting knocked down.
People drive and need rescued from snow covered motorways.
If every action we took in life that offers any risk required insurance we may as well curl up and die.
Sorry Nick, I disagree with you, this individual was allegedly an experienced climber, from the Aberdeen area, so in fact what I would call a local. He by his actions needed the help of 60 or so unpaid volunteers, who put their lives in danger, discount the RAF personnel as they get paid to fly and train in these old clapped out machines the Seaking helicopters, so in my opinion they are also putting their lives in danger, we all know the state of our armed forces equipment at the moment.
We on the Org have been noting the weather forecast updates that Tugmistress has kindly been posting for us all, I certainly would not have chosen this week to go climbing a mountain, no matter how experienced I was. Some one apart from the Tax payer needs to pay for this rescue.

[NickInTheNorth]

Some one apart from the Tax payer needs to pay for this rescue.

But as I keep asking, how is compulsory insurance going to do this?

And I am not trying to be argumentative, I just wonder what mechanism people see moving money from the insurers to the volunteers.

And at the heart of any debate of this nature is that word volunteer.

If they cease to be volunteers then they may not wish to carry out the rescues. What then?

[cuddlepop]

But as I keep asking, how is compulsory insurance going to do this?

And I am not trying to be argumentative, I just wonder what mechanism people see moving money from the insurers to the volunteers.

And at the heart of any debate of this nature is that word volunteer.

If they cease to be volunteers then they may not wish to carry out the rescues. What then?

What if the money went to buy equipment,maintain buildings,vehicles etc and none of it was used for wages would that not work?

[highlander]

Nick if there was a insurance company solely for the likes of climbers, ok this is probably a madcap idea, but maybe a percentage to be given to the rescue sevices, or like it has been said to fine those who have not paid any heed to weather warnings and then putting rescue personal lives at risk.

[NickInTheNorth]

What if the money went to buy equipment,maintain buildings,vehicles etc and none of it was used for wages would that not work?

Who is going to choose the equipment, buildings, vehicles etc? The rescue services? The Insurance companies?

How much are the insurers going to be out speculatively to which rescue team? If only paid out on results how is the initial cost of the equipment etc funded?

The current system works supremely well.

As the saying goes - if it ain't broke don't fix it. :D

Currently anyone who volunteers to risk their own life to save another has a complete freedom of choice. The can abandon the attempt at any time. As an individual they assess the risk for themselves and decide to attempt it or not. How would any employer make a risk assessment and provide a safe system of work?

[cuddlepop]

[quote=NickInTheNorth;332087]Who is going to choose the equipment, buildings, vehicles etc? The rescue services? The Insurance companies?

How much are the insurers going to be out speculatively to which rescue team? If only paid out on results how is the initial cost of the equipment etc funded?

The current system works supremely well.

As the saying goes - if it ain't broke don't fix it. :D

As more and more peple get the outdoor bug,the countryside is going to get busy and the current rescue services will be stretched.

So surely by insisting on insurance cover for these pursuits your proving direct funding which would go to the services.
A bit like the government fund them just now with no say in the running it should be the same if insurance companies are providing the cover.

[NickInTheNorth]

As more and more peple get the outdoor bug,the countryside is going to get busy and the current rescue services will be stretched.

So surely by insisting on insurance cover for these pursuits your proving direct funding which would go to the services.
A bit like the government fund them just now with no say in the running it should be the same if insurance companies are providing the cover.

Insurance cover will not provide direct funding to anything other than insurance companies and the shareholders of the same.

The current system does provide direct funding to exactly where it is needed. Each rescue team in it's own area raises funds as it sees fit. Sometimes local authorities will make donations; there are various grants made available. Central government can if it desires provide other funding. But the bottom line is such funding is provided directly to the organisations on the ground that know their area, know what they want, and by and large collect funding from the people that may require their help in that area.

Insurance companies exist for one purpose, and one purpose only.

To make profit. They do not give funds away, and put them outwith their control. They are not into charitable giving.

If a compulsory insurance scheme were put in place the volunteer rescue services would be the very first casualty.

[highlander]

I take it the volunteer would have to have some kind of insurance policy in case of accident or death? If so would he not have to pay a higher premium as its a dangerous job to do. Can you also please tell me, why if someone has to be rescued from hill climbing he can keep his name out of the papers, where as if you were rescued from the sea its automatically put in.

[NickInTheNorth]

I take it the volunteer would have to have some kind of insurance policy in case of accident or death? If so would he not have to pay a higher premium as its a dangerous job to do. Can you also please tell me, why if someone has to be rescued from hill climbing he can keep his name out of the papers, where as if you were rescued from the sea its automatically put in.

Tell you what, I'll try and answer yours after you try and answer mine ;)

It's very easy to start slinging around compulsory insurance rubbish, but far more difficult to justify it in the detail.

If I personally felt there was any benefit in such a move I would say so. I don't, but would love to be persuaded otherwise.

My big sticking point is how compulsory insurance would provide any benefit to anyone other than the insurance companies and their shareholders?

[highlander]

Tell you what, I'll try and answer yours after you try and answer mine ;)

It's very easy to start slinging around compulsory insurance rubbish, but far more difficult to justify it in the detail.

If I personally felt there was any benefit in such a move I would say so. I don't, but would love to be persuaded otherwise.

My big sticking point is how compulsory insurance would provide any benefit to anyone other than the insurance companies and their shareholders?

Nick i already put my idea's across about insurance companys, as far as i am concerned i am not slinging rubbish about compulsory insurance.
I could not care a hoot if you are not being persuaded about compulsory insurances, what i do care about is the tax payer, paying for a luxury of a minority, who have decided not to pay any heed to warnings of bad weather and expect us to bail them out.

[NickInTheNorth]

Nick i already put my idea's across about insurance companys, as far as i am concerned i am not slinging rubbish about compulsory insurance.
I could not care a hoot if you are not being persuaded about compulsory insurances, what i do care about is the tax payer, paying for a luxury of a minority, who have decided not to pay any heed to warnings of bad weather and expect us to bail them out.

The point is the taxpayer is not paying.

Charitable donations are paying. Mainly donations from the very people that may one day need rescuing.

The only part of the service tax payers fund is the helicopter rescue, and as already stated that is something that would be paid anyway.

I've never yet needed an ambulance. But I don't complain about the tax payer paying for them. I don't want nuclear weapons, but I pay for them. I'm not even a fan of motorways, but offer no criticism of them being built.

And even if I accept your argument about reducing costs to the tax payer I still say that you are talking rubbish in saying that a compulsory insurance scheme could be made to work.

Is it OK to rescue folks that have heeded warnings and still get into trouble? Or proceed into the hills when there are no warnings to heed and then something goes wrong and they need rescued?

And are you sure that heading into the hills is a luxury, and not a basic fundamental right of every man woman and child in the UK.

[cuddlepop]

Does anyone know if you went climbing in a foreign country would you be expected to have insurance cover or is it free their too.:confused

[Bobinovich]

My big sticking point is how compulsory insurance would provide any benefit to anyone other than the insurance companies and their shareholders?

I would see it as any other insurance work. If the voluntary emergency services have to be called out to rescue someone then that person's insurance company should cover the costs of the rescuers.

Either the insured makes a claim on their insurance who pays either the insured for distribution to the involved parties, or directly to the 3rd parties...

or

The insured has to give their insurance details to all involved 3rd parties who then make their claims on the rescued persons insurance company.

[NickInTheNorth]

I would see it as any other insurance work. If the voluntary emergency services have to be called out to rescue someone then that person's insurance company should cover the costs of the rescuers.

Either the insured makes a claim on their insurance who pays either the insured for distribution to the involved parties, or directly to the 3rd parties...

or

The insured has to give their insurance details to all involved 3rd parties who then make their claims on the rescued persons insurance company.

and how will the upfront costs be covered? I somehow doubt folks will feel quite as charitable if they are being compelled to pay ar higher costs for compulsory insurance. And of course once someone has insurance human nature being what it is claims will increase exponentially, and before long the great outdoors will be a true wilderness because no-one will be able to afford to venture out.

[Bobinovich]

Can you define upfront costs please - are you talking about the equipment used by these groups? As voluntary groups surely most of them are already equipped? Any monies they subsequently receive from insurance companies just help towards replacement or upgraded equipment.

[Rheghead]

and how will the upfront costs be covered? I somehow doubt folks will feel quite as charitable if they are being compelled to pay ar higher costs for compulsory insurance. And of course once someone has insurance human nature being what it is claims will increase exponentially, and before long the great outdoors will be a true wilderness because no-one will be able to afford to venture out.

Indeed, and as the present day era of litigation bites further into our lives, twisted ankle claims will trigger off all sorts of compulsory orders to do up old tracks and byways.

[NickInTheNorth]

Can you define upfront costs please - are you talking about the equipment used by these groups? As voluntary groups surely most of them are already equipped? Any monies they subsequently receive from insurance companies just help towards replacement or upgraded equipment.

equipment which requires updating and replacing. vehicles which wear out. is this going to be the first instance in history in which insurance companies will just settle claims by return of post.

as i said earlier the current system works well. the costs are met by charitable contributions from those that care to make them. the tax payer is not footing the bill.

why are people so keen to boost the wealth of the insurance industry to the detriment of those that wish to participate in outdoor activities?

[golach]

The point is the taxpayer is not paying.
Charitable donations are paying. Mainly donations from the very people that may one day need rescuing.
The only part of the service tax payers fund is the helicopter rescue, and as already stated that is something that would be paid anyway..
The true use of the Search and Rescue Helicopters are for military purposes i.e. rescuing downed RAF pilots and not for the use of civilians rescues. The RAF rarely refuse to attend a rescue thankfully, and your old red herring that they use the rescue as "Training" is long long gone, The MOD have already budgeted for the training schedules of the Search & Rescue, and these one off incidents are not on the schedules, so real training time is being used up when they go on a mountain rescue like this one.
The MOD have cut back the Search and Rescue services from Scotland, no longer do we have Helicopters stationed strategically at Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars and controlled from RAF Pitreavie in Dunfermline. Last time I heard, we have 3 helicopters based at Prestwick, one on service, one on standby, and one in bits, getting repaired. The cost of putting one of these ancient workhorses in the air is horrendous approx £5000+ per hour. How much longer will this last with our present Government, cutting corners every way they can?
And finally what will happen and who will pay for this rescue service, when Alex Salmond aka Wee fat Eck by some newspaper journalists and me gets full independence? [disgust]

[Bobinovich]

OK if insurance is such a bad idea then make it compulsory that those people (the ones who have to call out these volunteer services due to their own lack of readiness) are made to give substantial amounts to their rescuers.

I'm sure a lot of grateful ones do make generous donations, but I guarantee there are some who don't - probably the same ones who feel it is their right to be on those mountains ill-equipped.

So long as the volunteers receive something towards their group which allows them to continue their vital work.

[macleod_callum]

Members of mountain rescue teams are members because they want to be. Quoting a MRT member "I volunteer as a member of an MR Team as I want to put something back into an area that I enjoy so much." They know the risks of being a member and fully accept these every time they respond to a call out.

The 61 year old man required rescuing after sustaining a leg injury and spending a night out on the hills. He was experienced and had the correct equipment. This was an unfortunate accident.

A lot of people who participate in hill walking, climbing and other mountain sports will take out membership to either the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) or The Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCoS). Both of these provide the member with Civil Liability Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance cover. It is also possible to buy further insurance from the BMC to cover mountain sport activities. The cost of annual cover for walking form the BMC in the UK is £58.50 and for climbing £63.50. These insurance polices provide up to £50,000 cover for rescue/recovery costs.

People who go out into the hills without the proper equipment or knowledge are stupid.
However people shouldn't be put off going out into the hills if the forecast is for poor weather. Correct training, skills, knowledge, equipment and common sense can get you through most days

Callum Macleod

[karia]

The true use of the Search and Rescue Helicopters are for military purposes i.e. rescuing downed RAF pilots and not for the use of civilians rescues. The RAF rarely refuse to attend a rescue thankfully, and your old red herring that they use the rescue as "Training" is long long gone, The MOD have already budgeted for the training schedules of the Search & Rescue, and these one off incidents are not on the schedules, so real training time is being used up when they go on a mountain rescue like this one.
The MOD have cut back the Search and Rescue services from Scotland, no longer do we have Helicopters stationed strategically at Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars and controlled from RAF Pitreavie in Dunfermline. Last time I heard, we have 3 helicopters based at Prestwick, one on service, one on standby, and one in bits, getting repaired. The cost of putting one of these ancient workhorses in the air is horrendous approx £5000+ per hour. How much longer will this last with our present Government, cutting corners every way they can?
And finally what will happen and who will pay for this rescue service, when Wee fat Eck get full independence? [disgust]

That has so many inaccuracies that I know not where to begin..ifanow!

Still hurling insults about 'wee fat Eck' instead of considered argument about policies?

If we went for 'stupid reply..fie Ugly golach' you'd be the first to condemn us.

Garner your arguments and post them if valid..then be prepared to discuss without descending into childish insults.

karia

[Dog-eared]

Well said, macleod callum.

[golach]

That has so many inaccuracies that I know not where to begin..ifanow!

Still hurling insults about 'wee fat Eck' instead of considered argument about policies?

If we went for 'stupid reply..fie Ugly golach' you'd be the first to condemn us.

Garner your arguments and post them if valid..then be prepared to discuss without descending into childish insults.

karia
What inaccuracies can you point out Karia?
If you wish to refer to me as Ugly golach, what do I care, that is a childish practice, and the old adage sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me.[lol]

[karia]

:roll::roll:!

The inaccuracies will be dealt with one by one tomorrow..am I shying away from an argument?

No!.....I am ironing our clothes for John Nobles funeral tomorrow!

Priorities.....you don't even register!

[johno]

Dont know much about the politics & funding behind search & rescue, but what are the services to do ,just ignore the fact that someone is stranded on a mountain.
perhap,s through no fault of their own i/e an accident or maybe they went up when the weather was,nt bad,Weather forecast,s are good but not 100%. May still have been properly clothed & prepared. The same can be said about a drug addict or an alchoholic, are the hospital,s & the nhs going to refuse them treatment. i dont think so. i myself have nothing but respect for the rescuer,s they must do what they do through devotion for the job as the pay cannot possibly justify the risks involved.i would like to hear from the member,s of a search & rescue team to hear what they might add to this topic. it,s their input that i would listen to. :~(

[ywindythesecond]

Well done Nick in the North for a spirited rearguard action! The first thing I want to point out is that none of the poor put-upon rescuers who risk their lives for "idiots" on the mountains are complaining.

Callum MacLeod has it right: "Members of mountain rescue teams are members because they want to be."

People who ignore warnings are to be condemned. People who just don't know can be forgiven for their ignorance. People who are experienced and knowledgeable about the hills who come to grief are unfortunate.
Very few of the people who take to the mountains are idiots and the chap rescued recently is certainly not one of them. He was experienced, well equipped and resourceful.

Mountain rescuers don't differentiate between them. Very rarely will they openly condemn someone, and then only when the person should have known better.

About insurance for people going to the hills. Who does it apply to? A family out for a stroll? A tourist wondering what is over the hill? People who are reassured that the route up Ben Nevis is the "Tourist Path"? Fit experienced hill walkers on a day out well within their normal capability? The extreme climbing rock and ice specialist?

If you are not insured will you get rescued at all? If a volunteer saves your life but has to break your leg to get you down does he need to be insured against claims?

System works, doesn't need fixing.

ywy2