rescue insurance for mountaineers in Scotland - why not for us sailors too?
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
martyn78
Well-Known Member
Erm.....
Has anyone actually clocked the date the responses were made.
Sorry, but are you mentally deficient? What a load of babby logic and drivel.
Posted on 18/02/2013
The responses in the press summed it all up.
Guess it must have been a bad day for news - or were some journalists on strike recently.
Just a thought.....
Has anyone actually clocked the date the responses were made.
Sorry, but are you mentally deficient? What a load of babby logic and drivel.
Posted on 18/02/2013
The responses in the press summed it all up.
Guess it must have been a bad day for news - or were some journalists on strike recently.
Just a thought.....
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Not sure why compulsory insurance would solve the "problem" - nor what the problem is. Most of the argument is about either loss of young lives and the fact that most of the casualties are not Scottish. insurance would only change the finance away from the state or volunteers if all the insurance premiums were paid to the services, not just charging those who need it.
That is the reason why our society treats rescue services as a public good. We all contribute by way of taxes and the unfortunate few get the direct benefits. Not sure having umpteen insurance companies involve would result in a better or fairer service.
That is the reason why our society treats rescue services as a public good. We all contribute by way of taxes and the unfortunate few get the direct benefits. Not sure having umpteen insurance companies involve would result in a better or fairer service.
dylanwinter
Well-Known Member
it would save the exchequer some money
they are clearly keen on saving money
hence the Bristows contract
D
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Doubt that it would. What would happen to those who were uninsured?
Not sure the Bristows contract is about saving money - at least not by reducing the level of service. What was driving that was the desire to reduce the scope and cost of the military and as I and others have pointed out, the military no longer has the requirement for those services for military reasons so the government is providing them in a different way by employing dedicated specialist providers. These are not commercial helicopters moonlighting as rescue services but dedicated solely to rescue duties.
It may well be that the overall cost is lower, but that may well be as much to do with no longer using outdated, worn out dual purpose equipment.
Anyhow, not sure the good Scottish lady's argument was just about money. Seems to me it was more about the social impact of loss of life and of course the ritual sideswipe of Scottish taxpayers paying for the sins of the English. Helps divert things away from the real issues facing Scotland (and England!)
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
We are The State as far as money is concerned. State-funded means you and I paid for it. I have no problem with requiring insurance for specific activities as long as my tax bill is reduced commensurately. Given that I'm far more likely to need the emergency services as a result of the drive to the boat/mountain/whatever perhaps it would make sense to require specific insurance for any driving that is for purpose of getting to a leisure activity. As for English and Welsh risking their lives in Scotland - first off they have better funding than we do, secondly are we supposed to stop caring for any Scottish people in England or Wales unless they have insurance and lastly, we're still the United Kingdom. If a majority have voted for independence and the relevant laws have been enacted then she can do what she wants (Scottish democracy permitting presumably). Until then she's just a wasting oxygen.
macd
Well-Known Member
Dylan's playing devil's advocate (or devil's procurator fiscal?) and the ex-SMP is just being daft (as well as arguably advocating policy in breach of race relations laws). But there is a logical issue here.
One compelling difference between mountain rescue and maritime SAR is that the former concerns almost exclusively leisure activity, whilst the latter in large measure concerns commercial activity and always has.
So, should leisure 'victims' pay for rescue because they got themselves into into it for no good reason? Or should commercial 'victims' pay because they got themselves into it for Mammon? In either case, imagine the furore the next time a gale throws two disabled vessels towards the rocks and one is rescued, the other not, on the basis of their leisure/commercial status.
Better still, I propose that we are all GPS-tagged at birth. Depending on how often we spend in higher-risk areas (the sea, beaches, mountains, rugby pitches, show-jumping grounds, race tracks, swimming pools, roads, amorous embraces...in fact everywhere but under restraint in the padded bunker excavated under your house*), we pay a greater premium at the end of the year into our Personal Risk Insurance Cover. And what a load of sorry PRICs that would make us all.
* sorry, sir, you live in a high flooding risk area, so you can't go there, either.
One compelling difference between mountain rescue and maritime SAR is that the former concerns almost exclusively leisure activity, whilst the latter in large measure concerns commercial activity and always has.
So, should leisure 'victims' pay for rescue because they got themselves into into it for no good reason? Or should commercial 'victims' pay because they got themselves into it for Mammon? In either case, imagine the furore the next time a gale throws two disabled vessels towards the rocks and one is rescued, the other not, on the basis of their leisure/commercial status.
Better still, I propose that we are all GPS-tagged at birth. Depending on how often we spend in higher-risk areas (the sea, beaches, mountains, rugby pitches, show-jumping grounds, race tracks, swimming pools, roads, amorous embraces...in fact everywhere but under restraint in the padded bunker excavated under your house*), we pay a greater premium at the end of the year into our Personal Risk Insurance Cover. And what a load of sorry PRICs that would make us all.
* sorry, sir, you live in a high flooding risk area, so you can't go there, either.
Last edited:
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Mountain rescue teams are made up of volunteers who love the mountains - at no cost to the taxpayer. In fact, the taxpayer makes money out of them due to charging VAT on a lot of the kit needed (not all, but a lot).
When you need compulsory insurance for drinking, smoking or cycling, which cost the country many more billions, then perhaps start looking at other areas.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
NorthUp
Well-Known Member
The Scottish Government does make a contribution towards the costs of running the teams- then taxes (UK!) some of it back.
quote
There is a significant cost to delivering this service. All Scottish Mountain Rescue Teams have to do a lot of individual fund raising. Scottish Mountain Rescue Teams do receive grant aid funding from the Scottish Government and assistance from our major sponsor the Order of St John. This funding, gratefully received, covers approximately 25 – 50% of individual team costs depending on the size and specific demands on the team.
You can support us by either donating to your local team or choosing to donate to the national organisation (MRC of S).
http://www.mountainrescuescotland.org/
quote
There is a significant cost to delivering this service. All Scottish Mountain Rescue Teams have to do a lot of individual fund raising. Scottish Mountain Rescue Teams do receive grant aid funding from the Scottish Government and assistance from our major sponsor the Order of St John. This funding, gratefully received, covers approximately 25 – 50% of individual team costs depending on the size and specific demands on the team.
You can support us by either donating to your local team or choosing to donate to the national organisation (MRC of S).
http://www.mountainrescuescotland.org/
[70521]
Well-Known Member
There is just one small problem there. A GPS receiver will not transmit your position!
My mother worked for several years in the Belford Hospital in the 1970's and nursed many an injured mountaineer. When I started climbing she was concerned, but on looking at the statistics she knew I was in more risk driving to the mountain that I was on it.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Mainly because the police have a statutory duty for rescue outside coastal areas, and choose to delegate that to MR teams.
The situation is different in England & Wales.
macd
Well-Known Member
Oh don't be such a nit.
a) I didn't mention a GPS receiver. A GPS tag (think bail/probation conditions) will most certainly log position. But who cares, because:
b) one of the essential points of reductio ad absurdum is, believe it or not, absurdity.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Here in Switzerland , mountian rescue insurance is v comman , all serious outdoor peeps have it.
In the Winter similiar W sports ins .Nobody is left to die, all have open access .
You also need Med / Hospital ins as that is not free. -but excellent here -no NHS target culture compromising treatment outcomes
The Hospitals work closely with the copter co,s like " Air Zermat" and Air glacia" - to bring them ( injuries ) in from the mountains -dozens/ day
You will be presented will a bill ,normally admin come round when you are conscious 2-3 rd day to -sort out the paperwork
Typical bill for heli-evac + fracture bone fix -say 10 days inside -before sent home -= not much change out of £ 20 K - from personal experience - all covered on insurance .
In the Winter similiar W sports ins .Nobody is left to die, all have open access .
You also need Med / Hospital ins as that is not free. -but excellent here -no NHS target culture compromising treatment outcomes
The Hospitals work closely with the copter co,s like " Air Zermat" and Air glacia" - to bring them ( injuries ) in from the mountains -dozens/ day
You will be presented will a bill ,normally admin come round when you are conscious 2-3 rd day to -sort out the paperwork
Typical bill for heli-evac + fracture bone fix -say 10 days inside -before sent home -= not much change out of £ 20 K - from personal experience - all covered on insurance .
Last edited:
macd
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you're correct. I could probably have looked it up but couldn't be bothered because it makes absolutely no difference to the argument.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
Having watched a few bits of "Seaside Rescue" on the tv... It seems the majority of rescue missions were for stupid people who got into trouble around beaches and cliffs... The number of yachties who we in trouble was vey small.. As was the number of commercial fishermen who got in trouble, mostly on account of their own lack of maintanance..
However, given that yachties now outnumber commercial fishing boats... one should expect more yacht rescues than commercial boats..
However, given that yachties now outnumber commercial fishing boats... one should expect more yacht rescues than commercial boats..
interloper
Well-Known Member
While not exactly the same thing, it is very common in the United States to have on-the-water towing insurance. The Coast Guard is prohibited by law from towing boats unless there is an imminent risk, so boaters rely on private towing services. I've had the pleasure of using such services myself on more than one occasion. Of course, the private towing services are of no use well offshore and in adverse weather.
