Paying for rescue costs

[Arizona]

Another example:

The Arizona Stupid Motorist Law

People dumb enough to challenge mother nature when clearly posted not to & then enter or cross a flash flood area are at times featured on the news in Arizona being rescued and "fined" for the rescue. Why should tax payers foot the bill for such stupidity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_Motorist_Law

 

[battles2a5]

Stupid should hurt, and it should be expensive. One of our local boat operators charges knuckleheads for the O2 they use when they a) run out of gas and blow to the surface from a 110ft wreck dive, or b) overstay their NDL and come up w/ their computer freaking out and they have no idea what they've done.

 

[mts0628]

It is a fine, rather than a charge, because it is only levied on the negligent. If every rescue came with a bill, than "charge" would be more appropriate.

Well, as the financial status of states continue to spiral down, how many other incidents will be scrutinized to find a hint of negligence and then a fine is levied against a party? I am not saying this young Man's case was not without issue but it sounds like he was charged for everything.

On top of that he is charged for out of state helicopters because his state's birds were unavailable? That's crap. That's like saying, well you're at our hospital that doesn't have a procedure you'll need and there is no alternative, so we're going to charge you to take you to a hospital that does. Who's fault is that (provided you didn't have the ability to chose which hospital you went to initially)?

In the end I hope his fine gets reduced and then a cap is agreed on because if not, this will definitely become a precedent for cash strapped governments to charge ungodly amounts for mishaps. The rationales? There is no such thing as an accident and almost anything can be dissected to show fault.

 

[redacted]

It is a fine, rather than a charge, because it is only levied on the negligent. If every rescue came with a bill, than "charge" would be more appropriate.

I understand, but a finding of negligence should involve judgment rather than an administrative declaration. I guess the subject can always force it into the court system and let the case be made. Hopefully, what ever legislation is supporting this fine is reasonably clear and not some arbitrary decision.

 

[meierdierck]

Stupid should hurt, and it should be expensive..

BEST POST EVER........If I knew I had to pay for my own stupidity, maybe I wouldn't be so stupid......why should the general (non-diving public) have to pay for my chamber ride, We created DAN, so I pay my dues to offset my Stupidity.......

 

[Tigerman]

Thats why you have insurance that cover such things..
My travel insurance, provided its not in a warzone would cover all my ****ups and the end result of having it is that my total insurance costs are LOWER than it would be if I didnt have it. Gotta love discounts for having all my insurances in one place

 

[BettyRubble]

I'm completely torn on this issue. There was a news report by one of the major networks several months ago on the topic, and one particular guy who apparently, had to be rescued several times in his life. Seems he's an idiot savant. Frankly, he should have to pay for his rescue.

However, my big dilemna is this: Most of the time, when we go out to have fun, we do not intend to get ourselves into trouble. Many times it is the changing circumstances or a 'misstep' or single instance of bad judgement that puts us in peril. Isn't that exactly what rescue is for? On the other hand, there are those on the planet who seem to think it is great fun to put themselves purposefully into danger.

The golden egg goes to the person who can offer an objective definition of "purposefully".

My tax dollars go to pay for these services in the first place. I'd like to think that if I need them, they will be there. There are of course areas of the country where extreme sports thrive and they have a higher proportion of the rescues and related costs on their tax base. The Mt McKinleys of the world so to speak. So perhaps the way to supplement those services is with a flat fee charged on top of the hotel or entrance fees and those fees go into a rescue fund. Not sure how best to administratively manage that, but let's face it . . our government is 'expert' at figuring out how to collect the money . . .

 

[diversteve]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Since this thread doesn't discuss a specific diving related accident it's been moved to Non-Dive related as I couldn't think of a better forum. PM if you do and I'll move it again.

---

 

[DoogaDiver]

BettyRubble, it's funny you should mention the "idiot savant". I'm not sure where this case was located, but several years ago, when I lived in Arizona, I was a volunteer with a local sheriff's department search and rescue team. We basically did it all, including high angle rescues and recoveries, ground searches, etc. We in fact had one adult male, who in my 2 years with the organization, was rescued three times. All three instances were due to lack of planning and being properly equipped or trained for the situations in which he placed himself. In addition to the stupid motorist law previously mentioned, Arizona did in fact pass a law allowing fines to be levied for rescues conducted due to gross negligence. In all of my time with the organization, and averaging one rescue per month, I had never seen this used, although there were several occasions in which I thought it should have been. It is one thing to legitimately have an accident, even in an extreme sport, such as climbing or hang gliding, and require assistance. In those instances, I don't feel it is appropriate to charge for assistance. Accidents happen. It is entirely another, to do something illegal, or so stupid, such as climbing over a fence atop an 800 foot waterfall and plunge to your death, thus requiring others to put their lives at risk to recover your corpse.

Where to draw the line? I don't know. Perhaps these issues should be handled in civil court, where a judge may determine the level of negligence and fiscal responsibility. I would think in most instances, unless a diver was found to be partaking in activities far outside their training level, or was in gross violation of established safety standards, the thought of charging for rescue should not apply. Accidents and anomalies will happen. I also tend to agree that as divers, we can insure against our own stupidity, as it was cleverly put, through organizations such as DAN, which any frequent diver would be wise to do.

 

[Doubler]

If the rescue is diving related and the diver did something stupid to put himself in jeopardy he should pay for it, every nickel. As someone stated stupid should hurt. Many of us learn lifes little lesson by surviving stupid mistakes.
If the dive operator caused the rescue effort, the dive operator should pay for it plus a hefty fine and renumerance to the party involved. Again stupid hurts and it should hurt more if you are professional and offer a service.
If the incident is caused by mother nature then no one should be charged, weather changes and so do sea conditions at a moments notice.
As far as the "Rescue Tax" goes, you are correct the government is very good at getting money, but how much money do the rich and smokers have left. Of course rescue may be a right so just forget all the fines I talked about.