View Full Version : climbing mountains in the middle of winter
Tom Cornwall
30-Dec-09, 23:22
these people must be stupid to even contemplate the thought of climbing Scottish mountains in the middle of winter...they often end up injured or even dead..what about the cost of the rescue services which are put out to find them and airlift them home...perhaps they should have to take out compulsary insurance to cover this cost...it's not very good just telling them to wear the right clothes and keep an eye on the weather forecast...I'm sure the forecast for the last couple of days wasn't very good for the Scottish mountain areas....anyway...as I said at the start, they're stupid
Boozeburglar
30-Dec-09, 23:30
these people must be stupid to even contemplate the thought of climbing Scottish mountains in the middle of winter...they often end up injured or even dead..what about the cost of the rescue services which are put out to find them and airlift them home...perhaps they should have to take out compulsary insurance to cover this cost...it's not very good just telling them to wear the right clothes and keep an eye on the weather forecast...I'm sure the forecast for the last couple of days wasn't very good for the Scottish mountain areas....anyway...as I said at the start, they're stupid
Perhaps you should wait to hear the rescue teams' opinions on these people; as you seem impatient to condemn people who only just died..
I hope you are equal in your criticism of people who ventured out on the roads in these conditions and died as a result..
You won't hear me criticize them; but I would suggest they were much less prepared for the risks they were taking than those lost on the hills today.
bettedaviseyes
30-Dec-09, 23:37
not every nice thing to happen:( and there familys i feel sorry for but i also thought the same why the hell climb a mountain when the weather has been bad.
Kevin Milkins
30-Dec-09, 23:43
If there was one thing that would set my late farther off into a rage, it would be a news story of someone that had got themselves into difficulty while, (what he would call), "unnecessary pursuits".:mad:
We used to laugh at his rage when he would go into a wobble about how stupid could someone be for even trying to scale a difficult cliff or got stuck down a pothole.:lol:
wickscorrie
31-Dec-09, 00:02
if they venture out on the roads then there are 4x4's which can reach folk in the most treacherous of road conditions, but on a mountain then you are pretty much asking people to walk to save a person, so as tom says an insurance policy should be mandatory.
Boozeburglar
31-Dec-09, 00:07
Insurance would no more cover them than those who go out to help them.
Boozeburglar
31-Dec-09, 00:08
if they venture out on the roads then there are 4x4's which can reach folk in the most treacherous of road conditions, but on a mountain then you are pretty much asking people to walk to save a person, so as tom says an insurance policy should be mandatory.
There is no conventional 4x4 that will pass a 3 foot drift..
This is a mixed bag of causes and faults.
There area number of factors that are at play here, not just the stupidity of people in the winter holidays.
There are people that go out in the middle of summer totally unprepared also.
I have to agree though, there appears to be a degree of selfishness from a minority with regard to "unnecessary pursuits".
There are too many people who do not understand limitations, namely their own. And then expect to be airlifted out of their quagmire.
This is a year round issue that the rescue services deal with from many fronts. However there is an awful lot more going on that most people never even hear about. Day in and day out.
There are innocent calls that are not due to individuals stupidity also.
2 days ago an RAF Nimrod and Seaking were launched to a yacht who's emergency beacon had gone off accidentally.
(for maritime & safety reasons modern beacons have automatic functions, but these can often go off in quite mild rough seas)
There is a huge amount of work that is done in the background by many services to prioritise & eliminate situations but the single biggest factor (after stupidity) is communication. Either before or during peoples outdoor pursuits proper and clear communication is key.
And communication falls into the 7 P's category.
There is no conventional 4x4 that will pass a 3 foot drift..
Unfortunately the 4x4 thing is another common misconception, generally held by the Chelsea tractor brigade.
Having a 4x4 doesn't mean you have super human traction through snow and ice.
Knowing how to use the kit makes a huge difference though :cool:
Having a 4x4 doesn't mean you have super human traction through snow and ice.
:cool:
Very true as 4x4's cannot get to inaccessible places.
See quite a few here, but I don't think they are the best type of vehicle for the roads in Caithness either. Gas guzzlers and a bit of a showy, status symbol perhaps. :roll:
northener
31-Dec-09, 01:46
these people must be stupid to even contemplate the thought of climbing Scottish mountains in the middle of winter...they often end up injured or even dead..what about the cost of the rescue services which are put out to find them and airlift them home...perhaps they should have to take out compulsary insurance to cover this cost...it's not very good just telling them to wear the right clothes and keep an eye on the weather forecast...I'm sure the forecast for the last couple of days wasn't very good for the Scottish mountain areas....anyway...as I said at the start, they're stupid
Absolute rubbish.
But then again, you live in Norfolkshire, so hardly suprising that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Stick to complaining about Wherrys' getting shipwrecked.......
Has Tom Cornwall, who lives in Norfolk and posts about Scottish issues, done a runner after starting this thread?
Perhaps he's stuck somewhere?
Have to agree with Boozeburglar and Northener on this.
ywindythesecond
31-Dec-09, 02:01
these people must be stupid to even contemplate the thought of climbing Scottish mountains in the middle of winter...they often end up injured or even dead..what about the cost of the rescue services which are put out to find them and airlift them home...perhaps they should have to take out compulsary insurance to cover this cost...it's not very good just telling them to wear the right clothes and keep an eye on the weather forecast...I'm sure the forecast for the last couple of days wasn't very good for the Scottish mou'ntain areas....anyway...as I said at the start, they're stupid
Have you any experience of Scottish Mountains? Is Lewis Hamilton stupid for driving a fast car? Is it safe to get pissed on a Friday night and get into a fight? Would you ban bungy-jumping? What about jet-ski-ing? Crossing the road? Paragliding? Abseiling? Doing your own home gas-fitting? (Actually there is a law against that)
TC, Don't judge. Ask the people who do the rescues what they think. They do the rescues because they do what the people who might need rescued do. And it is much safer than crossing the road if you know what you are doing.
he must work for the h.s.e !!!
changilass
31-Dec-09, 02:20
Saying that it is a Scottish issue and that the op is from Norfolk has diddly squat to do with the subject.
Come one, I am sure you can offer up a better arguament than that.
The op has as much right to an opinion as everyone else, no matter where he is from or what his opinion is.
Until the RAF/Navy started getting involved with Sea Kings, all sailors had to rely on was the volunteer efforts of lifeboat crews, so should we ban people from going to sea as well?
Tom Cornwall
31-Dec-09, 09:22
Insurance would no more cover them than those who go out to help them.
but at least it would cover the costs of the helicopters etc that are sent out to hunt for them
Tom Cornwall
31-Dec-09, 09:25
Has Tom Cornwall, who lives in Norfolk and posts about Scottish issues, done a runner after starting this thread?
Perhaps he's stuck somewhere?
Have to agree with Boozeburglar and Northener on this.
I'm glad to say that I'm a Lybster person who had to move south to work, but I have lived there during the very bad winters of 1955 and '63, and more, so I do know what I'm talking about...
Tom Cornwall
31-Dec-09, 09:26
Absolute rubbish.
But then again, you live in Norfolkshire, so hardly suprising that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Stick to complaining about Wherrys' getting shipwrecked.......
see the answer I gave previously
cuddlepop
31-Dec-09, 09:58
The men who lost their lifes were professionally equiped but just unlucky to get caught in a freak avalanche.
I love walking and climbing hills so am fortunate to live in such a beautiful location but I would never go up into the Cuillins in these conditions to put my life or others in danger.:confused
Until the RAF/Navy started getting involved with Sea Kings, all sailors had to rely on was the volunteer efforts of lifeboat crews, so should we ban people from going to sea as well?
Jox the RN/RAF search and rescue Sea Kings are there for the specific use of rescuing Naval and Airforce aircraft crews, not for rescuing stupid people who go out on Ben Nevis when there are avalanche warnings being issued.
I know the RAF Mountain Rescue teams never discriminate between a military or civilian rescue, but why should these Forces personnel put their lives in danger to rescue stupid civilians. And who pays for a rescue? There is no budget to fly the Sea Kings to rescue civilians.
If you want to climb mountains and or take part in Xtreme sports take out insurance, so your rescue can be paid for!!!!!!!!
I agree with Tom
ywindythesecond
31-Dec-09, 10:48
Jox the RN/RAF search and rescue Sea Kings are there for the specific use of rescuing Naval and Airforce aircraft crews, not for rescuing stupid people who go out on Ben Nevis when there are avalanche warnings being issued.
I know the RAF Mountain Rescue teams never discriminate between a military or civilian rescue, but why should these Forces personnel put their lives in danger to rescue stupid civilians. And who pays for a rescue? There is no budget to fly the Sea Kings to rescue civilians.
If you want to climb mountains and or take part in Xtreme sports take out insurance, so your rescue can be paid for!!!!!!!!
I agree with Tom
The justification for RAF Mountain rescue being used for civilian operations is that it provides real situation training, and there is a training budget. It has been a number of years since an aeroplane flew into a mountain in this country so civilian mountain rescue is an important part of gaining and maintaining the skills needed while providing a key emergency service.
The people who do mountain rescue love the hills, and do not put their lives in danger during rescues, and are generally non-judgemental on those they help, so why should you judge when they don't?
"They were in a group of five highly-experienced climbers who were caught up in the avalanche. Ch Insp John Chisholm of Northern Constabulary said they were all well-equipped and European-accredited, but "it appears they were in the wrong place at the wrong time".
Quick, get the cotton-wool..
Tubthumper
31-Dec-09, 11:17
Very true as 4x4's cannot get to inaccessible places.
See quite a few here, but I don't think they are the best type of vehicle for the roads in Caithness either. Gas guzzlers and a bit of a showy, status symbol perhaps. :roll:
Surely, Stavros, an 'inaccessible place' is by definition not accessible by any means?
Thanks for your opinion on 4x4s. It's very welcome as always. And not in any way pompous-sounding.
Here's a wee hogmanay quiz for you
My first comes in a cup and saucer, with a biscuit on the side
My second is a wide blue item, in a boat we like to ride
Third is what you get when sweaty, scratching after running race
Fourth comes with a question mark, we roll our eyes and palm our face
Fifth is exclamation, like when Stavros makes a pompous note
Sixth's the one we're pointing at, for pomp on Org ___ get the vote
My last has stripy jumper, six wee legs and flies around on wings
Now add up all the letters Stavros, Have a good new year and things
if they venture out on the roads then there are 4x4's which can reach folk in the most treacherous of road conditions, but on a mountain then you are pretty much asking people to walk to save a person, so as tom says an insurance policy should be mandatory.
Absolutely....spot on comment.
tonkatojo
31-Dec-09, 11:46
Jox the RN/RAF search and rescue Sea Kings are there for the specific use of rescuing Naval and Airforce aircraft crews, not for rescuing stupid people who go out on Ben Nevis when there are avalanche warnings being issued.
I know the RAF Mountain Rescue teams never discriminate between a military or civilian rescue, but why should these Forces personnel put their lives in danger to rescue stupid civilians. And who pays for a rescue? There is no budget to fly the Sea Kings to rescue civilians.
If you want to climb mountains and or take part in Xtreme sports take out insurance, so your rescue can be paid for!!!!!!!!
I agree with Tom
I agree with you and Tom and Binbob. Although the practice can come in handy, but a line should be drawn and !!! sod it.
It has been a number of years since an aeroplane flew into a mountain in this country so civilian mountain rescue is an important part of gaining and maintaining the skills needed while providing a key emergency service.
Off the top of my head 2 airyplanes in the last 2 years have lost in the man & machine v granite battle. Civilian & Military MRT's assisted in both I believe.
There are changes coming in the SAR services and the private sector is crunching the numbers. I think it is inevitable that people will need to start looking at insurance for their sports / hobbies.
But even with that it'll be the berks that go trolling up hills without proper gear and insurance that'll expect to get airlifted out of their mess.
There is also a push for legislative change that will allow beacons to be used on land which will assist everyone in the case of problems.
northener
31-Dec-09, 12:55
Tom, my original post was rather harsh. And for that I apologise unreservedly. Shouldn't post when I've been on the Old Pulteney.:Razz
However.
All insurance will do is provide a false sense of security to idiots who don't know what they are doing in the first place. It won't make any difference to experienced mountaineers and hillwalkers at all. they'll still get caught out or have accidents due to the nature of their sport/hobby.
Bear in mind the 'idiots' I'm talking about are those sorts who will happily go to sea with nothing more than a mobile as a navigation/plotting/comms/distress device. Do any of you actually think that planks like that should be offered insurance? You'd just encourage them even more to set off with the attitude that "it's OK, they'll come and get me, I'm insured"[disgust]
Anyway, what would you expect the MRT's to do with people who don't have the requisite insurance? Leave them on the hill?
How do you differentiate between a 'mountaineer' who needs this amazing insurance and a day tripping family who've strayed a little further than they intended off the beaten track or have been caught out by freak weather conditions?
Can I walk my dog up a slope without insurance?
What areas would this insurance cover?
What happens if someone goes over outside these 'designated' areas? Do the MRT's refuse?
What if I go over a 50ft cliff in a lowland area adjacent to a mountainous area. Should I have had insurance? Will the MRT's refuse?
Unworkable cobblers. You cannot legislate what is uncontrollable. The only way you could do it is to ban everyone off high ground unless they have insurance and a certificate stating that they are competent to be in the area that they are walking/climbing in. And the Great Outdoors is an place where people go to get away from beaurocracy and cotton-wool idiots, not to be confronted by the 'Mountain Police' and legislation spewed out by finger-wagging office bound jobsworths.[disgust]
MRT's have no problem with going out to fetch guys and girls who know what they are doing and have come a cropper (the mountain will always win is a phrase I remember from somewhere) or peeps who have come unstuck. I know for a fact they get pished off with ill-equipped people who believe they are invincible and have very poor or non-existant hill/mountain skills.
It would be interesting to hear the views of existing MRT members on this.
ywindythesecond
31-Dec-09, 13:33
Tom, my original post was rather harsh. And for that I apologise unreservedly. Shouldn't post when I've been on the Old Pulteney.:Razz
However.
All insurance will do is provide a false sense of security to idiots who don't know what they are doing in the first place. It won't make any difference to experienced mountaineers and hillwalkers at all. they'll still get caught out or have accidents due to the nature of their sport/hobby.
Bear in mind the 'idiots' I'm talking about are those sorts who will happily go to sea with nothing more than a mobile as a navigation/plotting/comms/distress device. Do any of you actually think that planks like that should be offered insurance? You'd just encourage them even more to set off with the attitude that "it's OK, they'll come and get me, I'm insured"[disgust]
Anyway, what would you expect the MRT's to do with people who don't have the requisite insurance? Leave them on the hill?
How do you differentiate between a 'mountaineer' who needs this amazing insurance and a day tripping family who've strayed a little further than they intended off the beaten track or have been caught out by freak weather conditions?
Can I walk my dog up a slope without insurance?
What areas would this insurance cover?
What happens if someone goes over outside these 'designated' areas? Do the MRT's refuse?
What if I go over a 50ft cliff in a lowland area adjacent to a mountainous area. Should I have had insurance? Will the MRT's refuse?
Unworkable cobblers. You cannot legislate what is uncontrollable. The only way you could do it is to ban everyone off high ground unless they have insurance and a certificate stating that they are competent to be in the area that they are walking/climbing in. And the Great Outdoors is an place where people go to get away from beaurocracy and cotton-wool idiots, not to be confronted by the 'Mountain Police' and legislation spewed out by finger-wagging office bound jobsworths.[disgust]
MRT's have no problem with going out to fetch guys and girls who know what they are doing and have come a cropper (the mountain will always win is a phrase I remember from somewhere) or peeps who have come unstuck. I know for a fact they get pished off with ill-equipped people who believe they are invincible and have very poor or non-existant hill/mountain skills.
It would be interesting to hear the views of existing MRT members on this.
Well said Northener!
Bobinovich
31-Dec-09, 13:45
I'm not into any sports which could be deemed hazardous to my health - life is too short to put myself in danger! - but I can understand the rush some people get with achieving their goal. I certainly cannot understand those who deliberately put themselves at risk when they have a young family tho' :confused.
Anyhow, I agree that insurance should be mandatory for anyone doing these types of activities. If people really want to do it then it becomes a necessary expense, just like buying & maintaining their equipment. If some do it without being insured and end up in difficulty, and have to call out the services of others, then they should end up footing the bill (or a damn good amount at least) themselves! In order for insurance firms to issue a certificate the individual(s) or group will need to show they're suitably experienced & well equipped, thus precluding ill-equipped / prepared eejits from getting the insurance so maybe thinking twice before considering their venture.
I understand that these are good training exercises for the services involved, however if people get into trouble they will still need rescuing, so the services will still get their training. It just means that the costs involved with being rescued will - either in part or in full - be recovered and given back to the group(s) involved to help towards their costs.
How to differentiate between various groups? For mountaineers I would imaging it would be done by the height of the climb. I'm sure there are ways to gauge the difference in most sports between the serious participants and those who have simply strayed into trouble.
Tom, my original post was rather harsh.
I disagree. The original one line version of your post was all that was needed.
Stargazer
31-Dec-09, 15:07
What will the insurance you propose cover? Car insurance does not cover the cost of emergency services, road closures etc.
these people must be stupid to even contemplate the thought of climbing Scottish mountains in the middle of winter...they often end up injured or even dead..what about the cost of the rescue services which are put out to find them and airlift them home...perhaps they should have to take out compulsary insurance to cover this cost...it's not very good just telling them to wear the right clothes and keep an eye on the weather forecast...I'm sure the forecast for the last couple of days wasn't very good for the Scottish mountain areas....anyway...as I said at the start, they're stupid
What will the insurance you propose cover? Car insurance does not cover the cost of emergency services, road closures etc.
And are we to have Insurance Inspectors setting up footpath roadblocks to check would-be I-will-soon-need-to-be-rescued walkers and climbers to ensure that they have the right insurance cover? Or would the rescuers have to ascertain policy details from the helpless and dying before they venture out?
Perhaps on-the-spot fines could be levied and paid for via satellite switch connections before loading the body onto the stretcher?
tonkatojo
31-Dec-09, 17:22
What will the insurance you propose cover? Car insurance does not cover the cost of emergency services, road closures etc.
I am sure the insurance company's have already sussed out the premiums for different risks, no doubt with no claims bonus to boot. but you can bet it's loaded in their favour. they will be waiting for the nod from government.
Very true as 4x4's cannot get to inaccessible places.
See quite a few here, but I don't think they are the best type of vehicle for the roads in Caithness either. Gas guzzlers and a bit of a showy, status symbol perhaps. :roll:
what a daft thing to say,i have 2 4x4's,and 3 2wd,guess which we use on the farm,in the snow etc etc,42 mpg isnt exactly guzzling is it?
i have 2 4x4's,and 3 2wd
Congratulations! :D
Congratulations!
;):lol::D U are a hoot,Stavro...May the new year bring u all u would like it to!!!!
northener
31-Dec-09, 19:34
All that's happening here is the equavalent of an attention grabbing politician appearing on the telly after some horrendous event has taken place.
The standard comment is "Something must be done!" usually followed by some knee jerk, poorly thought out and unworkable plot to ensure "This is never allowed to happen again."
You pro-insurance bods are missing out on a huge fatal flaw in your plan.....
There are many governing bodies for 'extreme:roll:' sports - such as diving, paragliding, whitewater kayaking and serious ropework climbing. Many of these carry some sort of insurance, albeit just hird party in many cases, and have the clout to ensure the vast majority of those taking part in the given sport or hobby are rigorously trained in their chosen discipline- so far so good.
The fault is this:
All the groups involved have to learn specialist skills and invest in equipment to enable them to carry out their hobby. There's only a handful of idiots who will try to teach themselves how to scuba dive or barrel roll a kayak in a fast flowing river. 99.9999% will have to approach the sports' governing body to gain the skills and learn how to use the equipment. So they are regulated from day one.
Not so Mr & Mrs Muppet who decide to go hillwalking.
They already are equipped with the necessary limbs to propel themselves around the High Country. They need no equipment to be trained on and need no specialist skills. They are not governed by a controlling body that can state categorically that they are capable of walking where they are intending to walk. Their entry to hilly areas cannot be controlled by a governing body.
It would be physically impossible to stop people getting out of their cars and walking on open moorland/hills without investing a massive amount of money and resourses into something that cannot be successful. Therefore it would be impossible to enforce mandatory insurance/training upon the populace out on every hill in the UK.
Zoning would not work either, let's take mandatory insurance required to traverse any area over, say, 500m as an example. This would mean that anyone breaking a leg on Morven would require insurance - as it is 704m - and that's a fairly serious climb, with potentially lethal results if you get it wrong.
Maiden Pap, however, is only 482m and is only a hillock compared to the 'serious' hills of Scotland - yet I wouldn't want to fall off those rocks at the summit. And you'd be just as likely to cripple yourself up there as you would be on Morven...the only difference being that you haven't got to have some ridiculous piece of paper as you would be otside some arbitrary 'zone'...
But anyone stopping for a slash at the summit of the A9 at Drumnadrochit would need insurance the minute they walked away from the edge of the road![lol]
So how's that gonna work then?
Boozeburglar
31-Dec-09, 21:00
Where do you all get your information about the insurance status of those involved in these problems?
northener
31-Dec-09, 21:03
Where do you all get your information about the insurance status of those involved in these problems?
Who? me? Not sure I understand the question BB.
If you mean insurance as part of a club/society, then it's pretty common for the club to hold 3rd party insurance for their members. So if, say, a diver is loading his kit onto the boat and drops a 15ltr cylinder on the head of a tourist - then they're covered. It wouldn't cover for getting bent and being airlifted to hospital though. Same would apply to a kayaker who rammed a swimmer whilst paddling. I'm pretty certain BCU members have 3rd party cover for accidents like this. Wouldn't cover the kayaker if he smacked his own head on a rock, though.
Is that what you meant?
Boozeburglar
31-Dec-09, 21:07
All that's happening here is the equavalent of an attention grabbing politician appearing on the telly after some horrendous event has taken place.
The standard comment is "Something must be done!" usually followed by some knee jerk, poorly thought out and unworkable plot to ensure "This is never allowed to happen again."
You pro-insurance bods are missing out on a huge fatal flaw in your plan.....
There are many governing bodies for 'extreme:roll:' sports - such as diving, paragliding, whitewater kayaking and serious ropework climbing. Many of these carry some sort of insurance, albeit just hird party in many cases, and have the clout to ensure the vast majority of those taking part in the given sport or hobby are rigorously trained in their chosen discipline- so far so good.
The fault is this:
All the groups involved have to learn specialist skills and invest in equipment to enable them to carry out their hobby. There's only a handful of idiots who will try to teach themselves how to scuba dive or barrel roll a kayak in a fast flowing river. 99.9999% will have to approach the sports' governing body to gain the skills and learn how to use the equipment. So they are regulated from day one.
Not so Mr & Mrs Muppet who decide to go hillwalking.
They already are equipped with the necessary limbs to propel themselves around the High Country. They need no equipment to be trained on and need no specialist skills. They are not governed by a controlling body that can state categorically that they are capable of walking where they are intending to walk. Their entry to hilly areas cannot be controlled by a governing body.
It would be physically impossible to stop people getting out of their cars and walking on open moorland/hills without investing a massive amount of money and resourses into something that cannot be successful. Therefore it would be impossible to enforce mandatory insurance/training upon the populace out on every hill in the UK.
Zoning would not work either, let's take mandatory insurance required to traverse any area over, say, 500m as an example. This would mean that anyone breaking a leg on Morven would require insurance - as it is 704m - and that's a fairly serious climb, with potentially lethal results if you get it wrong.
Maiden Pap, however, is only 482m and is only a hillock compared to the 'serious' hills of Scotland - yet I wouldn't want to fall off those rocks at the summit. And you'd be just as likely to cripple yourself up there as you would be on Morven...the only difference being that you haven't got to have some ridiculous piece of paper as you would be otside some arbitrary 'zone'...
But anyone stopping for a slash at the summit of the A9 at Drumnadrochit would need insurance the minute they walked away from the edge of the road![lol]
So how's that gonna work then?
The insurance system is graded according to what you are doing, and in what context you are doing it.
It is possible to have full coverage for anything there is in the UK, but going out against advice can cause you a problem with your claim should you need to make one.
northener
31-Dec-09, 21:19
The insurance system is graded according to what you are doing, and in what context you are doing it.
It is possible to have full coverage for anything there is in the UK, but going out against advice can cause you a problem with your claim should you need to make one.
I understand.
But my point is that it would be impossible to make insurance compulsory.
I agree that insurance to cover airlift and callout charges would make sense..but what happens if the casualty hasn't got it?..Which is where we came in, I believe.
Regarding going out against advice, the first thing that would happen is the Authorties would then tell everyone to get off the hills as soon as the weather became less than perfect...simply to cover themselves against ambulance chasing lawyers. Not good.
Boozeburglar
31-Dec-09, 21:30
I understand.
But my point is that it would be impossible to make insurance compulsory.
I agree that insurance to cover airlift and callout charges would make sense..but what happens if the casualty hasn't got it?..Which is where we came in, I believe.
Regarding going out against advice, the first thing that would happen is the Authorties would then tell everyone to get off the hills as soon as the weather became less than perfect...simply to cover themselves against ambulance chasing lawyers. Not good.
I agree with you.
There should always be a priority for saving lives. Sort the paperwork out later.
What CAN be done is to make it mandatory for anyone out on the hills in a professional capacity to carry insurance, and that is more or less the situation now.
It is a fact that going out against advice invalidates most policies, and that makes it difficult as a lot of climbers are out looking to learn how to cope with 'impossible' conditions.
I think that is understood, and is why you will hear a respectful addition to many reports confirming that cimbers were 'experienced, able and well equipped'. When we hear that we should respect that is the way the rescue services are telling us that people were lost not in folly, but in tragic circumstances.
I think we should let the experts have the last say.
but at least it would cover the costs of the helicopters etc that are sent out to hunt for them
I think the people rescued should pay the bill. Why should the services risk their lives to rescue people who went up a mountain in the current weather conditions knowing it was dangerous.
Dog-eared
01-Jan-10, 03:38
The mountain rescue services are hillclimbers themselves and are volunteers. The RAF see these rescues as essential real life training for their aircrew.
" Dangerous " conditions for a townie might be very different for experienced climbers who just happened to be unlucky.
Six people lost their lives in road accidents in Caithness last year. Should the unfortunate families be sent a bill for that ?
northener
01-Jan-10, 12:11
I think the people rescued should pay the bill. Why should the services risk their lives to rescue people who went up a mountain in the current weather conditions knowing it was dangerous.
So, a family get caught out on the hill. They decide thay cannot afford to pay for a helicopter and do not alert the emergency services.
It'll happen.....
tonkatojo
01-Jan-10, 13:15
So, a family get caught out on the hill. They decide thay cannot afford to pay for a helicopter and do not alert the emergency services.
It'll happen.....
Its the same in any situation where insurance is required, if you aint got it your not insured, cars,holidays,life,national ins, are examples. Its the same old story the sensible ones that do have it get lumbered with the costs of those who havn't, just because of common decency.
northener
01-Jan-10, 14:10
Its the same in any situation where insurance is required, if you aint got it your not insured, cars,holidays,life,national ins, are examples. Its the same old story the sensible ones that do have it get lumbered with the costs of those who havn't, just because of common decency.
Absolutely.
But there is still the problem of it being unenforceable. I came up with an imaginary scenario to show the pitfalls of 'zoning' (as in areas you could not go without insurance). It's unenforceable.
And you could not possibly put a blanket requirement across the whole of the UK's population to have insurance on the off chance that they may go for a stroll in the hills whilst on holiday.
So we're stuck with the present situation.
Education is the answer not unenforceable legislation. Perhaps getting more kids out and involved in map reading and coping in wild areas would be a good thing?
The UK, like many other countries, has an obligation to provide assistance to people in distress and that isn't going to change.
Currently a large chunk of this is carried out by the military, this is due to change in the next couple of years when it goes private. This is where I can see cost recovery creeping in over the next decade or so starting with corporate entities.
What is needed is a longer term public campaign to try and discourage the idiots who clearly don't have a clue. The likes of people that go hill walking armed with nothing but flip flops and designer shades, the clowns that go sailing in kiddies inflatable dinghies.
Due cold nights and snow showers during the day a phenomenon rarely seen in Scotland,
Seriously, are you having a laugh here ?
Don't seem to follow, as you wrote this? (I was refering to a post by NapalmDeath74 but it's gone?!)
08-Jun-09, 23:01 "I enjoy like Sea Kayaking, Mountaineering on my own and the inerrant risk doing these sports solo can give will give cause for people to judge me as fool hardy, stupid, not giving a care for the people who might have to rescue me if one got into difficulty in the mountains or on the sea. I always Equip myself for self rescue if necessary and to aid the rescuers in locating me but the judgemental people will still say I'm reckless."
NapalmDeath74
01-Jan-10, 23:40
Don't seem to follow, as you wrote this? (I was referring to a post by Napalm Death 74 but it's gone?!)
08-Jun-09, 23:01 "I enjoy like Sea Kayaking, Mountaineering on my own and the inerrant risk doing these sports solo can give will give cause for people to judge me as fool hardy, stupid, not giving a care for the people who might have to rescue me if one got into difficulty in the mountains or on the sea. I always Equip myself for self rescue if necessary and to aid the rescuers in locating me but the judgemental people will still say I'm reckless."
I don't go out on the mountains when the weather or the conditions of the mountains could kill me and kill others trying to rescue me or retrieving my body if the worst did happen. I spent many a weekend and hard earned cash at Glenmore lodge outdoor training centre to gain the knowledge, courses like winter mountaineering skills, winter climbing skills, mountain first aid and avalanche awareness to keep me safe in the mountains, in winter I never go solo!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8438280.stm
Interesting!
p.s. the rescue Heli on this tasking had to call a Mayday itself due to icing.
It's rather ironic that our Scottish Government has just introduced a right of access to the hills and wider countryside and fresh water which is one of the best in the world. At the same time they are also desperately trying to cure an obesity epidemic by encouraging more people to get of their backsides and take exercise. So the last thing we need to do is anything which might discourage active outdoor recreation.
There is probably no more strenuous activity than hacking your way up a snow and ice filled gulley in sub zero temperature in heavy clothing with a pack on your back. Anyone who does this regularly is less likely to clog up the health service than a motor head whose idea of thrills is much more likely to feature in the paper on a Monday morning when things go wrong.
In my opinion the last thing we need is a layer of unworkable insurance bureaucracy which might restrict mountaineering activity. I spent 12 years in a mountain rescue team and used to meet one of the victims on the local climbing wall. I don't think that any of the rescue team volunteers who are all active on the hills and give of their time willingly would support the insurance idea and I hope it never happens.
Incidentally mobile phones have sometimes been used too readily to contact rescue services when a little more preparation and an earlier start would have been a much better insurance.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.