Unbelievable…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/24/cannabis-smokers-incapable-walking-rescued-englands-highest/

Is it stupid to crash your bike up a mountain and not be able to walk?

Yeah that’s pretty stupid.

I’m not sure we should charge for it though, you can imagine the same sort of thing being said about jumping off rocks on a push bike by some people.

“I find it hard to believe that they are completely unable to walk because of cannabis use”

Says it all really. Melodramatic nitwits.

Isn’t it about intent, though? You don’t ride your bike with the intent to crash. Those people were doing something they knew full well would incapacitate them to a degree, and they happened to take it too far.

Does taking cannabis incapacitate you every time?

I’m not sure they intended to be rescued. They made a stupid mistake.

How stoned would you have to be if you couldn’t actually walk?
Confused and lost maybe.. but so stoned you can’t walk…

Know a few people in the RNLI & have asked similar questions. Answer generally is no. Reason being they would prefer to be called early rather than too late due to somebody worrying about having to pay. Not only due to the obvious reason but as it’s likely to be more hazardous to them by that stage.

Plus, as above. Who decides what is stupid? Where do you draw the line? Danny McCaskill doing some crazy jump on Skye…should he pay?

Does taking cannabis incapacitate you every time?

Yes, to lesser, or greater degrees: What about if they took some alcohol to the top and got wasted?

I agree that physically, it won’t make you unable to walk. However, mentally, it could have that effect.

For the record: I don’t think they should introduce charging people for rescues as it could deter some from calling for assistance.

I don’t get it, how did the rescue services know they had weed? In the time it takes for a helicopter and walking teams to get there would have been plenty of time to get rid of any evidence long ago. Did they phone up the emergency services wailing ‘aghhh we’ve had some weed and we’re all gonna die!!!!’ ?

ftr I’m smoked weed on plenty of mountain tops and never died once. 😀

there is no way to get so stoned you cannot walk [ and presumably downhill]

Problem with the emergency services is that whilst we know some folk take the piss the problem is where we draw the line
Heart attack caused by obesity?
Crashing a bike on a mountain?

Secondly are we really prepared , as a society , to let folk die, even stupid folk who did not help themselves?

Define stupidity? So no you can’t charge. You charge for all rescues or none. Agree with the above. Keep it free not based on your ability to pay.

Yes, to lesser, or greater degrees

You could just say no it doesn’t. It may at th extreme but generally it doesn’t.

`What about if they took some alcohol to the top and got wasted?

Why does it have to be on a mountain, what about those in a town centre?

No. Ultimately that is what the emergency services are there fore. People who are better educated and experienced are less likely to get themselves into trouble in the first place, so by definition these services are called on by people who overestimate their own abilities, underestimate the elements or just are unaware.

It’s just one of those things. People will be stupid and make poor decisions.

Why does it have to be on a mountain, what about those in a town centre?

Because it doesn’t take a mountain rescue team in a town centre.

At Uni, I fairly regularly got into states, through weed, where I found negotiating my way back to my room hard enough; let alone trying to get down from the top of a mountain.

Was their predicament blown out of proportion? Yes, clearly. However, to compare it to someone taking a bike to the top and riding down, is rubbish.

Thanks all, well reasoned responses and I have to agree, although there have been many occasions when I’ve read or heard about similar examples of idiocy and thought that maybe the rescued should be charged.
Isn’t it the case in many countries though, that if a rescue helicopter is called out there’s an automatic charge for it?
The situation where I most often think a charge could be made is on the beach between Burnham-on-Sea and Brean, where every year people ignore all the signs and get stuck in the mud trying to walk out to the sea at low tide, a mile away, or drive their cars down the beach and get stuck, resulting in a big effort by volunteers which costs them a lot of money, about £250 a time, IIRC, and they attend upwards of 200 calls a year, so a not inconsiderable amount of money, and time as well.
Perhaps a strong suggestion that a donation be made could be the answer, I don’t know.
I do know that it was the drowning of a little five-year old girl that led to the fund-raising for the hovercraft that BARB now have, a desperately sad situation where charging would be totally inappropriate.

Because it doesn’t take a mountain rescue team in a town centre.

The question was should it be emergency and rescue services.

However, to compare it to someone taking a bike to the top and riding down, is rubbish.

It’s not. There are risks with both there are more people who ride bikes downhills at speed then those who head to Hills to get baked, which ones do you think cause the most calls? So which are the biggest ‘drain’ on the emergency services?

Isn’t it the case in many countries though, that if a rescue helicopter is called out there’s an automatic charge for it?

They can also charge you for the health care too.

Most common stupid stunts around here is.

Isn’t it the case in many countries though, that if a rescue helicopter is called out there’s an automatic charge for it?

An example I helped out with, in a very loose way.

On my local trails a few years ago, someone I vaguely know cased a jump and landed badly. It turned out later he’d chipped some bone of his hip and done some damage to his ribs. He was obviously in pain and couldn’t move so his friends called 999. I was at the scene shortly after to find a group of concerned riders trying to keep the casualty warm and comfortable.

A very unfit paramedic puffed her way up from the car park. (Maybe 500m away, vertically about 70m climb.) She radioed for a fire crew – no ambulances available despite it being 11am on a Sunday morning. A whole fire crew arrived, so we had about 10 MTBers, plus firemen. All willing to carry the casualty down to the car park to a non-existent ambulance.

The only option was to airlift the casualty out. The whole process took over two hours. The casualty lying on the ground for the whole time, covered in thermals and waterproofs. It was very early April – hypothermia was a genuine concern.

So, should the casualty be charged for being airlifted because of the lack of resources or options that the emergency services provided?

I’m guessing that you’ve personally had more of your time “wasted” by alcohol related incidents than the amount of rescuers time wasted in this incident?

Which prompts the bigger question here – if you’re going to charge people to be rescued from mountains are you also going to charge people to be “rescued” from the city centre on a Saturday evening? What’s the difference? Where do you draw the line?

I note it’s not the only recent stupid MRT incident, but then those incidents are unusual enough to get publicity whilst the everyday stupidity Drac deals with is so commonplace we ignore it
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/patterdale-mrt-needing-to-urinate-in-shoes

if you’re going to charge people to be rescued from mountains are you also going to charge people to be “rescued” from the city centre on a Saturday evening?

Or should they be charged for getting treatment for lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking?

My answer used to be no to any charge, but now after 16 years serving the people of Hampshire I do believe there are certain instances that cost recovery should be used and the protocol does already exist.

Currently all public services are being smashed financially, to use the EMERGENCY services for work that private companies are charging for is wrong in my opinion. There simply isn’t enough of us around and available to waste the resource.

There will always be a time when a non emergency should be classed more urgent, but using two fire engines with 10 firefighters to attend a non urgent lift rescue whilst the lift engineer (not blaming them) travels from 50 miles away to do the job the maintenance company charge for is wrong.

Likewise an automatic fire alarm system that activates, we regularly attend and then have to remain for hours nursemaiding a faulty system because the monitoring company haven’t got an engineer or key holder to send. We can’t leave due to it being a Life risk or similar. That monitoring company are not providing the service they charge for.

On the flip side I do not believe we should charge for incidents where through intoxiction, misadventure or stupidity people require our assistance, whatever led people to get to the point of needing help to not help would place some in real danger, potentially life threatening.

Charging for any of our emergency services is the thin end of a dodgy wedge in my view. Where do you stop charging and how do you define criteria?

Societies ills are not solved through punitive punishment or excluding people who are judged by another to be too thick or ‘not the right type’.

Education and support for those who pick up the crap has to be the only way – change our society.

No because some folks would not call for fear of getting a bill.

However publishing a list of rescues and the way someone says thank you or not should be published.

Thank you should be in the form of donation to a suitable good cause, fundraising activities or other good services to society….

Agreed but when you don’t have the resources because of lack of funding to attend a simultaneous non emergency lift and a road traffic collision or house fire (require the same number of personnel) then actually cost recovery is a potential source of helping to offset the missing resource.

I genuinely think people in the north of Hampshire would be very very concerned if they realised how few fire engines were available for calls. I won’t give a figure but feel free to request a foi about it.

The correct answer would be properly funded emergency services, who can provide the expected service by society.

We are an insurance policy, to go for the minimum cover will only lead to disappointment when required.

matt_outandabout – Member

Charging for any of our emergency services is the thin end of a dodgy wedge in my view. Where do you stop charging and how do you define criteria?

Exactly. Should you charge to rescue people wearing trainers and ‘active wear’ up Pen-y-Fan and not charge for incompetent people wearing all the right gear?

Agreed but when you don’t have the resources because of lack of funding to attend both a non emergency lift and a road traffic collision or house fire (require the same number of personnel) then actually cost recovery is a potential source of helping to offset the missing resource.

I might be reading it wrong but that sounds like simple bad management rather than lack of resources?

(A friend who is a paramedic was talking about the need to take drunks to A&E because there is nowhere else safe to take them. Takes time and resources but surely this is the same – poor management of a know problem.)

Some people are always going to be rubbish at risk assessment while growing up,they will arrive at places as an adult where their ignorance is going to get them in to bother.
The more generations that don’t ‘play out’ is only going to make things worse.
The trouble with common sense,is as they say,not that common.

I’m guessing that you’ve personally had more of your time “wasted” by alcohol related incidents than the amount of rescuers time wasted in this incident?

Massively so.

Idlejohn how are they supposed to deal with these drunks then? Some cities set up a resource where drunks can be taken to rather than a hospital. Surely the answer is people take responsibility not for others to find a solution to treat them?

I might be reading it wrong but that sounds like simple bad management rather than lack of resources?

A lack of resources is usually the issue, maybe a partial but very small contribution to the lack resources is bad management but only a very small part.

Idlejohn how are they supposed to deal with these drunks then? Some cities set up a resource where drunks can be taken to rather than a hospital. Surely the answer is people take responsibility not for others to find a solution to treat them?

I was surprised that uninjured drunks would tie up resources at A&E. First I’d heard of it. Surely, the solution is as you say – a separate place, not necessarily a working medical facility. But as you say, ideally people should take responsibility for themselves. But that should apply to everything, shouldn’t it?

Maybe should have been told “wait until it wears off then walk down”. Idiots.

Lummox, surely if you can’t redeploy resource from a non urgent one to a critical one the system is broken? You have much more chance of influencing that than us. I’m also not sure why you need 10 people for a lift rescue if the engineer can do it with one or two? I am surprised though you aren’t charging for AFA false alarms, and lift jobs. Twenty years ago the university halls used to tells us it cost 400 every time there was a false alarm, and the building management in our office tell us individual tenants will be charged for triggering smoke detectors etc…

Different charging a business than the public though.

Aracer makes a point though that triggers a different question:

Which prompts the bigger question here – if you’re going to charge people to be rescued from mountains are you also going to charge people to be “rescued” from the city centre on a Saturday evening? What’s the difference? Where do you draw the line?

If I am paying directly for a service I’ll expect it and demand it. Whether that is using the ambulance as a taxi, or expecting MRT to be like a guide service people with cash will be idiots.

Of course if your stupidity is so bad to risk other people’s safety then you might be committing a criminal offence (reckless endangerment or whatever the English equivalent is).

I assume MRTs work like lifeboats and have no obligation to respond – the “launch authority” making the decision that the circumstances merit a response without putting the team in excessive danger. So if it was a waste of their time they could have said so.

Not sure why it needed an air ambulance? That probably sends the wrong message – if you are stoned and fancy a helo trip just give us a call…

surely if you can’t redeploy resource from a non urgent one to a critical one the system is broken?

That’s what I was just trying to post! 🙂

Isn’t it the case in many countries though, that if a rescue helicopter is called out there’s an automatic charge for it?

I expect so, and in many countries there’s no charge, and in some countries it depends on region/state, and in many countries search and heli extraction is free, but you pay for the ambulance ride.

I was surprised that uninjured drunks would tie up resources at A&E. First I’d heard of it. Surely, the solution is as you say – a separate place, not necessarily a working medical facility. But as you say, ideally people should take responsibility for themselves. But that should apply to everything, shouldn’t it?

Yeah sometimes it is the case don’t listen to the press abou it being a recent thing it’s always happened. Seperate place is well and good but it needs manned and where do you place them, in every town or just major cities? Yes self responsibility includes everything we do.

it is the case don’t listen to the press abou it being a recent thing it’s always happened.

Is it at the same level as it used to be? Btw, I’m looking at this the POV of Swansea having a very specific bar ‘district’ which is easy to oversee because its all one street rather than being spread through town.

There’s always been a drink culture I don’t think much has changed.

My job would be much easier if the general public didn’t do stupid things

That’s not what I mean! 😆 (and you’re right, it’s unlikely to change. It’s only been going on for 5000 years at the least.)

I’m not sure it did – there is mention of “air support”, but the suggestion seems to be that the MRT walked them down, so I’m not sure what the air support did.

You get charged in France for mountain rescue, at least if it involves a helicopter. Mountains are bigger, but it doesn’t seem to cause any problems.