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

[yorkie_chris]

It shouldn't be law, not at all, but it would be damned rude not to...

[anna]

I have never understood how it is that boats are the only vehicle that you can buy and yet not have to have a licence for. I have always thought that this fact alone must increase the amount of unnecessary rescues performed.

Air ambulance is something I have always given money to, they operate on a charity basis. Sadly I have been in the unfortunate position to see their finest work first hand, and they do an AMAZING job.

I agree that it shouldn’t be made compulsory however; I do feel it is a moral obligation to pay back what is owed if abused.

[Biker Biggles]

Originally Posted by anna

I have never understood how it is that boats are the only vehicle that you can buy and yet not have to have a licence for. I have always thought that this fact alone must increase the amount of unnecessary rescues performed.

Air ambulance is something I have always given money to, they operate on a charity basis. Sadly I have been in the unfortunate position to see their finest work first hand, and they do an AMAZING job.

I agree that it shouldn’t be made compulsory however; I do feel it is a moral obligation to pay back what is owed if abused.

Prams pushchairs rollerblades/skates invalid buggy bicycles.Theres loads of things you dont need a licence for which can cause some nasty accidents.
I think boats do get regulated now,but its to prevent them getting up to terrorism of course.

As for the OP,I believe that all public services should be subject to a nominal charge to the user possibly on a sliding scale according to income,but everyone who uses should pay something.This mainly to instill a sense of value in the users for the services they consume and to dissuade trivial usage.
So if you got rescued by the RNLI you would get a bill for say £50.Nothing like the cost of the rescue,but just a contribution towards the service.
Similarly if parents were charged say £50 a term towards their kids education perhaps they would take more interest in the school and value its efforts more than some do now.
Just one of my slightly off the wall ideas???

Some interesting issues raised here

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...

I agree with this but I also agree with what Speedy Claire said:

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

Personally I think that maybe some "token" gesture should be given

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

What instantly springs to my mind is the RNLI. The RNLI depends entirely on charitable donations and the crews are volunteers who give up their time and comfort to provide a 24 hour lifesaving service in what are quite often dangerous conditions.

Those organisations which do rely wholly on donations should certainly be rewarded. Now I use the term “reward” lightly here – I do not mean reward as in “good job mate, here is some cash”, I mean reward as in something which will contribute towards helping the service continue to run at its existing capacity (or expanding its capacity). It would be awful to think that the RNLI (for example) would have to reduce the work it does due to lack of funds in running the lifeboats etc.

Id like to think that someone who has been rescued due their own negligence would feel morally bound to give a donation. But then, not everyone has the same moral obligations and rules.

Originally Posted by wizurd

Donations are up to the individual

They are. But what if there came a point where services were at their maximum and couldn’t afford to cover their costs in order to run? I guess this could be resolved by what red herring said:

Originally Posted by Red Herring

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

If this insurance type policy was adopted, I guess it would mean that those who were negligent are the only one who would ‘have’ to contribute some cost.

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

I believe that all public services should be subject to a nominal charge to the user possibly on a sliding scale according to income...

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

So if you got rescued by the RNLI you would get a bill for say £50.Nothing like the cost of the rescue, but just a contribution towards the service.

One could argue that’s what National Insurance is for. I pay around £200 (or something) a month. One could say that money will pay for my rescue if I ever needed rescuing..!

Obviously there is an infinite amount of issues and arguments and all sorts to cover, but I thought this was an interesting topic to bring up and debate about. I guess the key point here is whether donations/payment should be made to voluntary services such as the RNIL because the police and fire services are state funded by the government and our national insurance contributions.

If they saved your life, then your obviously going to feel a debt of gratitude towards them and if someone was to fund raise in order raise awareness/money then brilliant what a bonus. But doing it because you have to then no, most people would prob try to swim to shore or jump from a buring building etc.

[keith_d]

I'm a diver, so when I pass an RNLI box I usually make a donation because one day it might be me or my mates that need their help.

As a general point, I'd rather avoid the American model where every thing has to be paid for, and consequently everyone has to take out insurance. As far as I can see the only ones that really benefit from this arrangement are the insurance companies.

However, if I'd done something stupid and put other peoples lives at risk to rescue me I'd be pretty keen to provide them with some recompense, either by sending them a huge pile of beer or doing some fund raising as appropriate.

Keith.

.

Making people pay to be rescued - this is less about the actual money, more about trying to change peoples behavior. In that case, it's a bad idea. Social engineering projects always have unforeseen consequences, usually some bad ones, occasionally worse than the problem you were trying to solve in the first place.

No. But as said it would be rude not to I think.

[TEC]

Originally Posted by Miss Alpinestarhero

.... if people think they have to pay the services back they may end up delaying their call for help which could result in a more dangerous situation for both the person in distress and the rescue services.

The very reason why a payment shouldn't be forced. Have been in situations that shouldn't have happened when people hought they would have to pay for the help (foreign shores) so they waited till the last minute to shout for help, sailing into tornado's is not much fun for some people



I on the other hand was thought to be a complete nutter