Should people who have been rescued pay back some of the cost?

[Bri w]

Normal accident/incident I agree, shouldn't have to pay - but if you're proven to have been negligent to this sort of degree I feel you should at least offer to help recover the outlay, but I'd hate to see it made legal.[/QUOTE]

I'd hate to see it made legal too. Once laws are drafted, and someone breaks them the courts become involved. Which leads to more laws, and more expense to enforce them. And then you've got greater Gov involvement in the running of the rescue orgs. and does that organisation have the skills sets to perform the rescue, which could lead to Gov 'policing' of the org.

I prefer to see what some extreme sports people do, i.e. insure themselves for the participation in the sport, which can include rescue.

If your rescued and it was due to your own negligence then i'd like to think the person involved would try to pay some money back just out of kindness, but it would never work actually charging people for it. Donations are up to the individual

isn't this almost the same question as the binge drinking one? i.e. if it's your own silly fault then you're not entitled to services; if it was plain accidental then you can have what you need.

I think that you shouldn't need to pay to be rescued, but you should donate to the organisation that rescued you.

People dont realise what they have until they see it slip away, and that should be enough to inspire someone to donate to the charity or organisation that saved their life.

IMO if you required a rescue for being a prat or theiving git then yes they should pay.

No. Deffo not. As others have said, if you've contributed to the problem by stupidity then yes I think it appropriate to help pay towards the cost, but no obligation.

[gruntygiggles]

I think making it compulsory is nothing more than sheer stupidity. As has already been said by Luckpants, cost should not come into play in an emergency or rescue situation.

If it is proven that the necessity for rescue arose because of negligence, then there could be something brought in that would have that person have to volunteer or give something back to society. Not for financial purposes, but because going on a rescue mission, these organisations and volunteers have to put their lives at risk and those irresponsible enough to have to rely on that selflessness should not be allowed to just get away with it.

As for the bloke who raised £30,000 to cover the cost of his rescue (and more).....from what I remember, this was a teenage boy. He was interviewed last year and said that he was so ashamed of what he'd done and that he'd risked the lives of others, he felt he had to do something to pay for it. Fair play to the lad I say!

[BanannaMan]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

First of all, no one should have to pay to be rescued or saved in some way. Cost should not be a factor in an emergency situation.

+1
Cost should not be a factor.

However this has recently changed where I live.
You now have to pay for ambulance/rescue service.
How many people will have to die because they couldn't afford to be rescued???




And they call this "the land of the free"...
But that doesn't include any type of health care coverage.

[Red Herring]

As I recall there was a lot of discussion on this subject following the rescue of Tony Bullimore (he was the bloke rescued at vast expense by the Australians, or was it New Zealand, after he lost his keel during a round the world race). The argument was that those engaging in such activity should take out some kind of insurance policy that would cover any potential rescue costs on the grounds that what they were doing was extraordinarily dangerous and therefore outside the normal expectations of what a reasonable person, or society, should expect. The home nation argued that by spending so much on that particular rescue they in fact crippled their service and potentially reduced the remaining service available for their own countrymen. A case of perhaps letting one person go for the benefit of the others?

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by BanannaMan

You now have to pay for ambulance/rescue service.
How many people will have to die because they couldn't afford to be rescued???

When I was rescued on Canada, I received a bill weeks later for the Ambulance and hospital treatment. This was covered by the medical cover part of my travel insurance. If you were required to pay for such things, then of course insuring yourself against that before venturing into the situation that may require rescue is only prudent. I might add that the rescue team and helicopter evac were FoC. My group made a contribution to the rescue squad by way of thanks.

As bikers we are vulnerable to needing the rescue and medical services. Therefore when venturing away from the UK where these services are free, we should always take out insurance to cover any bills that crop up. The additional vulnerability of the motorcyclist is reflected in the premiums for such cover, as to ride a bike over 125cc has to be specified and an additional premium paid.

None of the above means that I agree with charging for these services, just that where this is the norm make sure you are covered in case you need them.