Megan Hazen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
meganursula) wrote2009-11-02 11:24 am
meganursula) wrote2009-11-02 11:24 am
personal locator beacons
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2010171491_trhikingemergency01.html?cmpid=2628
This article discusses one of the side-effects of having working and affordable beacons on the market. I linked to one of these beacons a couple of weeks ago, and Saska pointed out that she'd actually gotten on for her father, who likes to spend time alone in the wilderness. Basically, the beacons allow for easy call for help, and they are occasionally misused by someone who wants comfort, but isn't in an emergency situation.
Honestly, the article sort of annoys me. The problems isn't the beacons. The beacons are a tool, and, i think, really can serve a valuable function. I like the one i linked to that had an 'i'm okay' function - mostly because i have spent a few evenings wondering when my friends are late enough in returning to merit a phone call to the ranger service. Also because when Josh or i are traveling, we use text messaging for that purpose just checking in, and its a really nice thing to be able to do. I can see valuable uses for these things in both emergent and non-emergent situations. (An 'i'm okay' call might actually prevent an un-necessary rescue.)
Like most tools, though, they can be abused, and it sounds like they are. But i don't think its fair to blame the tool for people being idiots. I don't really know how to solve the problem - idiots have been going into the woods for a long time. Their chances of survival have increased (along with those of the non-idiots), but they are still idiots. Short of somehow eliminating idiots, i'm not sure we can eliminate the kind of problems that this article is citing.
Don't be idiots, folks. I like you all too much.
This article discusses one of the side-effects of having working and affordable beacons on the market. I linked to one of these beacons a couple of weeks ago, and Saska pointed out that she'd actually gotten on for her father, who likes to spend time alone in the wilderness. Basically, the beacons allow for easy call for help, and they are occasionally misused by someone who wants comfort, but isn't in an emergency situation.
Honestly, the article sort of annoys me. The problems isn't the beacons. The beacons are a tool, and, i think, really can serve a valuable function. I like the one i linked to that had an 'i'm okay' function - mostly because i have spent a few evenings wondering when my friends are late enough in returning to merit a phone call to the ranger service. Also because when Josh or i are traveling, we use text messaging for that purpose just checking in, and its a really nice thing to be able to do. I can see valuable uses for these things in both emergent and non-emergent situations. (An 'i'm okay' call might actually prevent an un-necessary rescue.)
Like most tools, though, they can be abused, and it sounds like they are. But i don't think its fair to blame the tool for people being idiots. I don't really know how to solve the problem - idiots have been going into the woods for a long time. Their chances of survival have increased (along with those of the non-idiots), but they are still idiots. Short of somehow eliminating idiots, i'm not sure we can eliminate the kind of problems that this article is citing.
Don't be idiots, folks. I like you all too much.
no subject
Proponents argue that the prospect of paying might keep people from calling for help, but they didn't mention that being a problem in New Hampshire, where the practice is in place. I'm not sure that I agree with paying ALL of it - the article cited a teenager who was charged 25k - but perhaps a portion? What's your feeling?
no subject
Are there cases where I think the parties should be billed? Yes, the group in the linked article is a prime example of people who should be paying.
Are there cases where I think the parties should not be billed? Yes, things happen. If you're prepared for everything, you never do anything.
Are there cases where I'm not sure if people should be billed? Absolutely! And it is hard for the law to deal with these cases.
One model I find interesting is SAR insurance. The way this works most of the time is that you need a permit to climb a particular peak (i.e. Mt. Rainer). The permit is not cheap but comes with accident insurance which pays for a rescue should it be needed. Of course you'll get people who climb the mountain several times a year for years, who get mad about paying for service they never need. (Ski areas are a good example, one thing that your lift ticket pays for is the Ski Patrol.)
Searches are expensive even if you don't use air support. (Most of the teenager's bill was for the helicopter.) Even if the search teams are volunteer, there will be law enforcement involved (read: paid, most likely overtime). The volunteer teams gladly give there time (and money) but we do get frustrated when the subject is so far over their head they can't even see the sky.
EMS companies deal with this too. You (or your insurance) pays for the ambulance ride. It Pittsburgh, PA they will bill your insurance and bill you for the rest unless you're a city resident in which case they get what they can from insurance and write off the rest.
no subject
It seems like there could be some sort of mountaineering insurance that could provide the same service. One thing about an insurance company is that they could spell out some of the benefits up front - and perhaps state that they won't pay for every type of response?
It does seem tricky, though, especially in those borderline cases.