Derring Dough

Posted on 2004/08/10 13:34:32 (August 2004) by john.

Who should foot the bill when "adventures" go wrong?

I was prompted by this article to see if anyone has any strong views either way on this issue. The article in turn was prompted by the recent rescue of the Pink Lady, which I hadn't even heard about until it went pear-shaped, presumably like many others. I think they were trying to row across the atlantic, or something like that. They ran into trouble, and had to be rescued, at an estimated cost of £120,000.

Now I hope no-one is going to suggest people in this situation shouldn't be rescued at all. The question is really who should pay for this sort of operation? Is it really fair for the taxpayer to foot this arguably unnecessary bill....?

It doesn't just apply to rescues at sea, the same is equally true of other areas of dangerous outdoor activity: mountain rescues particularly spring to mind. I am constantly hearing stories small groups (or even lone individuals) going out mountain climbing, ill prepared, getting lost, or falling off a cliff or something like that. You then need umpteen helicopters, packs of dogs and so on to go and find them. Now again, I gope no-one is going to suggest we just leave people to fend for themselves when these things happen - I mean, we all make mistakes. At the same time though such rescue operations are costly, and it is more than likely it will be people with a bit more common sense (i.e. taxpayers) who end up paying for it.

Of course the other element in this is that often the rescuers are put in some danger by attempting the rescue - should they really have to risk their lives for what some people might say is just sheer folly in the first place...?

I guess the counter argument is that the spirit of adventure, or whatever you call it, is an important part of what makes us who we are... So to put a blanket ban on trans-Atlantic rowing and mountain climbing would have a detrimental effect on our psyche or something. Alternatively, charging people for their own resuces could leave some people financially ruined for life, especially given that the judgement as to whether or not it was truly their own fault may often be somewhat subjective.

Any thoughts?

I am not sure taxpayers suffer too greatly from these kind of rescues, since the helicopters and crew for the RAF and Coastguards are already paid for, in terms of if they wern't out saving someone they would be doing a simulated training thing instead.

I think the biggest issue is other people risking their lives for the stupid idiot who 'fancied a quick stroll up a mountain with only a packed lunch for company'

Posted by Kev at 2004/08/10 14:11:01.

That is a grey area indeed. Personally, I'm all for the tax-payer having to foot the bill for the occasional adventure-gone-wrong. People are all too quick to point-out the costs (e.g. £120K) but what would our country be without adventurers? On the other hand, we have the likes of that moron David Blane, whose "Adventure" was to sit in a glass tank for a few weeks. Now that's what I call a total waste of time- but apparently the policing bugdet got near the half-million mark,
and *we* all had to pay for the idiot!

Posted by Jimmy at 2004/08/10 14:26:44.

I would agree with both these comments, but would add that lots of rescues are carried out by volunteers who rely on donations. So as a scuba diver and hillwalker, I'll bung a quid in the Lifeboats or local mountain rescue collecting tin whenever I come across them. Also, if people knew they would have to pay for their own rescue it probably wouldn't deter them from going out unprepapred, but it might put them off calling for help until the situation escalates and gets really dangerous.

Posted by Alex at 2004/08/11 14:10:51.

Oops, sorry, seem to have a bit of verbal diaorrhea there....

Posted by Alex at 2004/08/11 14:11:21.

A good point Alex... Mmmmm so how about a kind of insurance scheme for aventurous pursuits...? So in effect you pay up front regardless, whether you actually require a rescue in the end or not...?

Posted by John at 2004/08/11 15:45:26.

I have insurance with the Moutain Leader Training Board.... This includes very specific life insurance that you can't get elsewhere as a "loony moutaineer".

I don't go unprepared, but I could still make a mistake and require rescueing one day. Like Alex, I stick my spare change in the appropriate charity boxes from time to time. Let's call it another form of life insurance!?

What might surprise you is the decision that our group made on our BELA course. We all voted that if we found an 'idiot' in trouble on the hills, we would leave him be (sort of) and head off in an attempt to find help. We would *not* risk ourselves (or especially our party) to exposure, hypothermia or whatever he might be at risk from. (Although I'd probably do basic first aid and so on.)

Posted by tom at 2004/08/11 20:54:31.

By the way, I passed my BELA. (Basic Expedition Leader Award.)

Posted by tom at 2004/08/11 20:55:25.

Should the tax payer pay for those idiots who get leathered every weekend on alchodancebigcockshirtswornontheoutside drinks?

Posted by karl at 2004/08/13 02:13:26.

Re: last post by me.

Of course I'm on about the policing and the NHS, etc...

Posted by Karl at 2004/08/13 02:14:25.

Well I'm certainly a little confused.

Posted by John at 2004/08/13 09:16:32.

Sod it. Anyone who does anything silly shoul dbe left alone to suffer their consequences. Including Anthea Turner.

Posted by tom at 2004/08/13 17:46:51.

Post a comment