Covering 'emergency services' costs?

[Boris+]

I really don't want to start WW3, but I caught a glimpse of something on the television - about all the help and assistance which is given to people who 'come unstuck' whilst they are pursuing their 'hobbies'.

I can see that someone going about their normal lives or in the course of their work who needs emergency assistance (by road or by helicopter etc) should have that provided free of charge and provided as quickly as safely possible. However, should people who go out on rivers or the sea, rock climbers or fell walkers or cyclists/motor cyclists 'doing it for fun' have priority and also should they have the services free of charge?

I am wondering (not that I can do anything about it) if it is fair for emergency services to be used for one of these 'fun-seekers' meaning that their is a strain on the emergency services and causing 'ordinary folk' to have to wait? I also wonder whether these 'fun-seekers' should have to have insurance in place to pay for any emergency services? After all, these 'fun-seekers' are very keen to have the latest fashion wear for their particular activity, so why not have less of the gussied-up clothing/accessories and pay for insurance instead?

I'm not being a grump - just wondering.

Em

[david63]

"Fun seekers" are "ordinary folk" so the answer is yes they should benefit from the emergency services if they fall into difficulties. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion you could then say that "ordinary folk" should not receive treatment if they were to do something silly, like walking into the road without looking.

[Boris+]

Hi David,

I suppose I'm guilty of trying to differentiate between people who have hobbies which are a bit dangerous and maybe a tad hedonistic? If someone is unfortunate enough to walk out into a road and get run over, then the emergency services will bill the relevant insurance company?

Somehow, I can see the difference between someone going rock-climbing or mountaineering and someone just going to work or doing the shopping.

Em

[The Tinker]

Interesting idea, Boris, because when you go abroad you pay extra insurance premiums for 'extreme sports' so why not here?

[Boris+]

Hi Tinker,

And then - looking at it with a slightly different angle ...... people who have (albeit lovely and wonderful) holidays here in the UK most probably don't have to get travel insurance. Book a cruise - and it's a 'must do'. I note a difference to buying an annual cruising insurance not including USA, and one which does.

It would be interesting to know how many claims for health assistance are made against cruise travel insurance, compared to the costs of providing free of charge assistance to what I have called 'fun-seekers'.

Em

[Dancing Queen]

Who would be the one to decide which hobbies are deemed dangerous though

Diving is not considered a particularly dangerous sport but one mistake and it could be.

Horse Riding is another the rider could do everything right but who could anticipate what would happen if a horse was startled by something.

Running is yet another if someone falls and breaks an arm/leg is that considered any less of a hobby than rock climbing.

All sports/hobbies carry an element of risk but so does everyday life my husband slipped on ice and broke his ankle, it would be fair to say that if he had been looking where he was going it might not have happened but unfortunately accidents happen and I doubt anyone ever anticipates they will.

To go one step further the NHS should be available to all those that are entitled to it regardless of why, so maybe all the foreign visitors that come over here specifically to get free medical treatment should be the ones who are refused first or at the very least ensure when they enter this country they have the necessary insurance cover to pay should any treatment be necessary as we have to when travelling abroad.

[Boris+]

I suppose any decision about what is 'dangerous' would be decided by some overpaid underworked Quango made up of policitians and insurance men!

Good point about 'tourists' though Jo.

Em

[Frank Manning]

Dont get me started on "Yachties" and the RNLI. I was a yachtie myself for a few years, and was indoctrinated in how easy it was to get into trouble if you didn't prepare absolutley everything before setting out. If you did get into trouble you hoped the RNLI would get there to get you out of it, hence we used to contribute fairly regularly.

i think they all do an amazing job in the UK.

[Kendhni]

I would suggest that sports and hobbies should require insurance ... the emergency services should claim from that insurance or the person directly.
Only an idiot would go on holiday without the correct insurance so why not extend that and take a little bit of the burden of the NHS (although first I would say that the NHS would have to review some of the extortionate charges it makes ... some are actually higher than private health care).

[Boris+]

I seem to recall that the annual subs at the golf club included some sort of insurance - I never did find out what it exactly covered, but I did have to claim on it three times; and it paid up without any problem.

Em

[Meg 50]

I seem to recall that the annual subs at the golf club included some sort of insurance - I never did find out what it exactly covered, but I did have to claim on it three times; and it paid up without any problem.

Em

all sensible clubs are public liability insurance - even the Bridge club!

[Meg 50]

there's certainly an argument for some sort of clawback from inept, ill prepared sailors and mountaineers.

the mountain rescue and RNLI are all volunteers and not public funded

[Boris+]

Hi Meg,

Sometimes we'll see an item on the news about people who have either gone up a mountain without proper preparation (no equipment and not telling others what they are going to do), or taking to the water (again no equipment and not telling others what they are going to do). Just how daft can some people be?

The mountain rescue people then have to go and sort them out - or the RNLI, and it really annoys me.

The other thing I get annoyed about - people who let children play on inflatable 'toys' at the beach, and then the tide does what the tide always does and they end up too far out from the shore.

Em

[Silver_Shiney]

I'm not sure what the situation is now, but years ago many mountain rescue teams were RAF volunteers who would have to go out during "working hours" - their wages still had to be paid.

My view is that if you go, say hill walking or mountaineering, and you have proper boots, hard hat, tent, food etc - ie, you are properly equipped to participate in your fun then the rescue could arguably be free. However, if you go wearing shorts, t-shirt and canvas shoes - ie you have made no effort to help yourself, then charges for rescue should be levied.

[Meg 50]

precisely, and I doubt that the rescuers would mind helping them - cos it's the nature of the beast, that problems can occur.

It's probably those kind of people who fund raise for relevant charities - like the air ambulances

[oldbluefox]

I'm not sure what the situation is now, but years ago many mountain rescue teams were RAF volunteers who would have to go out during "working hours" - their wages still had to be paid.

My view is that if you go, say hill walking or mountaineering, and you have proper boots, hard hat, tent, food etc - ie, you are properly equipped to participate in your fun then the rescue could arguably be free. However, if you go wearing shorts, t-shirt and canvas shoes - ie you have made no effort to help yourself, then charges for rescue should be levied.

As a fell walker myself I would agree with you. In fact I would have no problem with a levy being placed on walking boots, clothing etc to support mountain rescue. The same could be applied to water sports in much the same way. Alternatively, as Ken suggests, insurance in the event of accident although how that could be determined I know not, since the risk of accident in the mountains would differ according to terrain, activity, experience.
The problem with any levies would be how it would be distributed. Would it be on callouts, length of callouts, distance? And what effect would they have on the charitable status of the rescue services?
My wife's uncle was a founder member of a local mountain rescue group and her family regularly used to take in those injured on the fells. Talking to one member of a local mountain rescue service he was opposed to any government intervention and preferred to remain independent and rely on donations. He was very happy to pursue mountain rescue as, if you like, a hobby and saw it as a way of extending his mountaineering skills in a different way and as a way of putting something back. He had no problems with being called out to genuine accidents and emergencies but did get annoyed with calls to help people off the mountains as they had a dinner appointment, because their dog was tired and they could not carry it or because they were not properly equipped for the mountain or weather conditions. Did you know that the government still charge VAT on their equipment (or did do 18 months ago)?

I get a great deal of pleasure from this hobby and always support them whenever I can. Surprisingly he said there are many whom they bring down off the mountains who neither offer a thank you or a donation because they think they are paid. As they are all volunteers on call day and night in all weathers 365 days a year how disgusting is that attitude? If in need of mountain rescue I would happily pay for the excellent service they provide.

[Onelife]

If there was ever legislation introduced that required “adventurers” to insure themselves against every eventuality then the boundaries of human endurance would never be tested. Sometimes you just have to climb what’s in front of you to see what’s on the other side.

Oh! And the insurance companies would take us all to the cleaners.

Regards

OL

[Kendhni]

If there was ever legislation introduced that required “adventurers” to insure themselves against every eventuality then the boundaries of human endurance would never be tested. Sometimes you just have to climb what’s in front of you to see what’s on the other side.

Oh! And the insurance companies would take us all to the cleaners.

Regards

OL

Most professional adventurers already do insure themselves and that includes surface, underwater and space exploration.
Those just going for a bit of nosy don't have to, but would be advised to.

The whole insurance system is totally up the creek. We should stop insuring each other and concentrate purely on insuring ourselves for an amount that we consider adequate or fair. If you do not insure yourself/family or under insure then that will be your decision ... that includes all kinds of insurance including, home/contents/travel/motor/life etc. Wouldn't it be nice that you paid a single premium for all your insurance needs.

[Meg 50]

what about 3rd party?

surely we should have something in place in case we hurt someone else?

[Kendhni]

what about 3rd party?

surely we should have something in place in case we hurt someone else?

That is the stupidity of the current system. Insurance companies make billions by convincing/forcing us to insure everybody else.
Each person should take responsibility for their own and nobody else. If someone decides to gamble or be a cheap skate and under insure themselves then that is their problem.

We have to get away from the blood lust of monetary revenge. Let the courts deal with responsibility and punishment; let individuals deal with insuring themselves.

[Capt Black]

Many moons ago I went down the road on my motorbike and had to be taken to hospital. Nothing broken, just some bruises, went home that day.

A couple of weeks later I got a bill from the hospital for the treatment which I received, apparently there's a bit in the Road Traffic Acts (I think) that allows the NHS to do this. It wasn't a lot, and I could re-claim from my insurance (the damage to the bike exceeded the excess anway) so paid up and added it to the insurance bill.

A couple of weeks after that I got another letter, saying that I hadn't paid up. I double checked my account, the cheque had been cashed. Wrote back giving them the details. Another letter duly arrived apologising the error etc. Great bit of admin, the cost of which probably negated the amount paid, ultimately by my insurer, for the treatment I received. No wonder Basildon hospital gets the adverse publicity it gets.

A few years ago, a work colleague threw a car into the armco on the A23. He got billed for the repairs.