Storm Ciara: Further Idiocy

[ChillDoubt]

...and placing Rescue workers/volunteers in heightened danger through lunacy:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-51447226

It’s obvious from the statement by Lochaber Rescue Team that they’re fed up of ill-equipped morons endangering all concerned. As I said on the surfer thread, this needs to be made an offence.

[TheDevil]

"As I said on the surfer thread, this needs to be made an offence."

If you'd rather people risk their lives then accepting the help they severely need because of fear of fine or record then fair enough. I think it's a *** idea.

[TheDevil]

Also, if these volunteers didn't want to volunteer, then they don't have to.

The surfer didn't ask for assistance, it was given to him if he wanted it or not.

If they got to him and he refused rescue, would you still want this to be an offence?

[Prudie]

But people have to take some responsibility and not rely on emergency services. Who the hell do they think they are going up a mountain like that unprepared and wearing trainers? Rescue teams risk their own lives - it's not fair on them. Enforced donation (which is the same as a fine but goes to the right place) is not too much to ask.

[bhg481]

If you are going to make it an offence you are going to have to provide facilities for every person wishing to walk up Ben Nevis to have their equipment checked and a certificate of conformity issued before they leave. This will have to be done immediately before they start the walk, otherwise they could sneak off and change outfit before they start.

[SlackAlice]

I agree and they should also get a "bill" for all of the costs involved.

[pixie374]

The problem is... where is the line drawn about what is or isn't an "acceptable risk"? I can't see what the legal definition would be? And would it really be worthwhile suing people? It could end up far more expensive than anything got back.

[emmie]

i was watching this on the news with open mouthed incredulity....

[andy-hughes]

I'd agree with Prudie - in a case where people have clearly been negligent with their own safety, and by default, the safety of the rescue teams, they should be required to make a minimum donation - say £50 per individual, to the organisation that rescued them.

I am sure they would consider the rest of their lives to be worth that!

[TheDevil]

Victim shaming/blaming is a horrible colour, especially this time of year.

Accidents happen. Yes they can be prevented but who climbs a mountain and thinks "Well if we can't get back down the emergency services are there for us" ? No one.

If anyone knew they would get stuck they wouldn't climb.

Who thinks they need ice picks and crampons to climb a UK mountain? There is a lovely path going up Ben Nevis very easy climb. Trainers especially in summer are fine.

Weather can flip on a mountain with the click of fingers.

Very easy to victim blame but a bit harder evidently to use ur brain and think about he poor situation these chaps must have been in.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // The problem is... where is the line drawn about what is or isn't an "acceptable risk"? I can't see what the legal definition would be? And would it really be worthwhile suing people? It could end up far more expensive than anything got back. //

I go with Prudie's suggestion - the rescue team assess the level of stupidity, and demand a donation in line with that. Only a true cretin would refuse to support the organisation that has just saved their lives for them.

[emmie]

TD, do you honestly think that going up any mountain in trainers especially at this time of the year is a good idea because i don't.

[emmie]

a donation from each person to the rescue services wouldn't go amiss.

[pixie374]

I just can't see it would be practical, no matter how illegal it is to be stupid... absolutely anyone who needs "rescuing", is doing something dangerous, whether climbing a mountain, crossing a road or crashing a car. I think we need to accept people are human, although sometimes idiotic or irresponsible, but we do need some daredevils too... or we would never have got anywhere. We either help people in trouble, or we don't.

[TheDevil]

Emmie, you'd be fine up Snowdon lamberris path.

Andy "the rescue team assess the level of stupidity" They aren't able to because Ability and Stupidity are variants.

Accidents happen.

[TheDevil]

Pixie sees the lunacy in the suggestion that fines or penalisation's are legally enforced, thank god!

[ummmm]

Can you really fine people for being ignorant?

I don't know about Ben Nevis but I went up a mountain in Ireland and at the bottom there are a list of rules. Break the rules at your own risk.

[andy-hughes]

TheDevil - // Andy "the rescue team assess the level of stupidity" They aren't able to because Ability and Stupidity are variants. //

I believe they can.

It's not designed to stand up to a legal challenge, but something like "Look, you have clearly put yourself, and us, in danger because you are not equipped properly …" should result in the desired donation.

If not, fine, you can add callousness to stupidity!

There is a world of difference from equipped climbers needing rescue, and amateur numpties needing rescue - one would probably donate anyway, the other should be asked - nothing more than that.

[andy-hughes]

ummm - // Can you really fine people for being ignorant? //

No, but you could add to their education by reminding of the costs and risks of providing a rescue service, the services of which means that the party is still alive, and request a donation.

[pixie374]

They already suggest donations from people they have rescued. I thought this was a suggestion of fines?

[ummmm]

That was my point, Andy, break the rules at your own risk. You either pay for rescue or you die.

If I was given a list of rules and I didn't meet them, I wouldn't risk it.