Adrian Stott wrote ... > I'm not saying you should be prevented from doing it (although before > very long your insurer might in effect do that). I'm saying that if > you "understand the risks" you should realise that they are higher > than a prudent person would take.
Can't agree with that. A prudent person would evaluate the risks, mitigate them where possible and take extra care. A sensible prudent person wouldn't cease from partaking in an activity which is not, when all's said and done, particularly dangerous > Some people climb high mountains in mid-winter. There is a name for > the class of such persons, and it isn't "mountaineer". Actually, the name for them *is* mountaineer And this is the classic chestnut that is always trotted out around about now in these sort of discussions > I wouldn't > care about them, except that when they get into trouble they tend to > call out the (publicly-funded) rescue crew. In FACT, they tend to call out the VOLUNTEER mountain rescue teams who receive NO government funding whatsoever! And the members of the volunteer mountain rescue teams are themselves climbers and fell walkers who, if anybody actually bothers to ask them, are the last people on earth who would want restrictions placed on peoples freedom to go into the hills and mountains. When rescue helicopters are involved, they are usually from the RAF or the Royal Navy whose primary role is the rescue of service personnel and are funded from military appropriations. As far as the military SAR teams are concerned, civilian rescues keep the aircrews operating at peak efficiency Now it is fair to say that you won't find anyone more scathing about people who go up into high places inadequately equipped than the mountain rescue teams who have to drop everything and go and haul them off. However, by and large it is not the people who go climbing in the winter who pose the problem, it is people who go for a 'nice walk up that hill' in flip flops a T-shirts in midsummer! >If the climbers had > insurance (cor, what a premium!) to cover recovery charges from the > crew, I wouldn't care about them at all. Such charges are starting to > appear, including IIRC for search-and-rescue of hikers in the North > American wilderness. And that is the thin end of a very very big and nasty wedge. Charge the climber for the helicopter rescue. Sounds reasonable. OK, let's charge the motorist for the fire brigade cutting him out of his car. Let's charge granny for the ambulance that takes her to hospital when she has a fall at home. Actually, they already do charge (and in some areas at least have done for more than 30 years) for emergency ambulance services to insured motorists ... or in my case motorcyclists. (Talking of motorbikes, if one accepts your arguments *at all* then they'd be banned too!) Actually, let's just charge everybody the full cost of everything. If they can't afford it, then they can die and leave those of us who can better off. 'I'm very sorry Mr. Smith, you'll have to die because your insurance is out of date and we can't send an ambulance to you' I do not want to live in a world like that. A world where the only people who can enjoy themselves are the well off. A world where the quality of medical care and the availability of emergency services is determined by ability to pay. If I did, I'd move to the USA! > If there are two people and one falls in the lock, the other can save > him. > > If there is one person and he falls in the lock ... A. He can save himself B. He dies - he chose to take the risk. His choice. Bru
