[Closed] Should the emergency and rescue organisations be able to charge for stupidity?

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]"I find it hard to believe that they are completely unable to walk because of cannabis use"[/i]

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.

[img] [/img]

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?

[quote=Drac ]The question was should it be emergency and rescue services.

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?

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 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.)

[quote=poly ]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...

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.

cannabis
(Explanation of the changes in the law on cannabis)

On 29th January 2004, cannabis had been reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug in the UK, but as of Jan 26th 2009, the meddling politicians reclassified it back to Class B. And they wonder why people get confused!
Here's a summary of what reclassification means:

NOW: CLASS B CANNABIS
Illegal.
If you are under 18, you will be arrested and given a formal warning.
Up to 5 years in jail for possession
Up to 14 years in jail for supplying or dealing

Before: CLASS C CANNABIS
It's still illegal
If you are under 18, you will be arrested and given a formal warning
Up to 2 years in jail for possession
Up to 14 years in jail for supplying or dealing

Cannabis is still illegal., and the maximum penalty for possession is five years in jail.

I think the answer to the question is based around legality of the situation..

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

Maybe there weren’t so many sensational docu-soaps about it?

Yup that’s part of the problem Jambo, it is an issue for certain but not really much more than it ever was. Mobile phones make it easier for people to ring in for help too where at one time they’d walk past without thinking of dialing 999.

Aracer - I think you are right I read "air support and ambulance" as "air ambulance".

oldnpasit -
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 problem

Bigger harder mountains mean people are more aware of the risks and serious users likely to take out insurance. Have you carried out some sort of controlled study though to know if:

1. People delay calling for help due to the costs?
2. People with serious injuries but no means of payment get worse care?

Otherwise "it works there" isn't proof it is any better.

bikebouy - Member
cannabis
(Explanation of the changes in the law on cannabis)
On 29th January 2004, cannabis had been reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug in the UK, but as of Jan 26th 2009, the meddling politicians reclassified it back to Class B. And they wonder why people get confused!
Here's a summary of what reclassification means:

NOW: CLASS B CANNABIS
Illegal.
If you are under 18, you will be arrested and given a formal warning.
Up to 5 years in jail for possession
Up to 14 years in jail for supplying or dealing

Before: CLASS C CANNABIS
It's still illegal
If you are under 18, you will be arrested and given a formal warning
Up to 2 years in jail for possession
Up to 14 years in jail for supplying or dealing

Cannabis is still illegal., and the maximum penalty for possession is five years in jail.

I think the answer to the question is based around legality of the situation..

That isn't the practical implementation of the law though. Soon as there's a friendly government, obviously not the tories, it'll be legalised, medically firstly, then for recreational purposes.

btw you'll notice intoxication isn't actually illegal.

As for cannabis's ability to incapacitate, yes it can, if inexperienced, or even if experienced and haven't taken it for a few months, first hit can knock you on your arse, you just need to lie down.

They'd have been fine in an hour or 2 at most though, probably sooner, much sooner, half hour most likely.

But it’s illegal at the moment isn’t it.

Practical or impractical interpretation of the law isn’t in question, it’s illegal.

Practical or impractical interpretation of usage is up to the user..

That quote came from The Canabis Users own website and it seems it’s there to qualify the rules, rightly because it’s changed to and fro over the years.

Intoxication isn't illegal, only possession, cultivation or dealing(And even at that there are only penalties if you get caught, and if the polis are even interested.).

What's the point you are trying to make anyhow? The legality would seem to have no relevance to the OP's question.

bit disappointed in STW tbh, there's a distinct lack of mountain/weed puns missing from this thread.
Maybe these youths felt they weren't high enough.
They went as high as they could.

I'm not very good at puns 🙁

The legality would seem to have no relevance to the OP's question.

None what so every so no idea what bikebouy is on about.

It does.

the question is should emergency services charge, in this instance due to the illegality of canabis use I think so.

Before you start on the whataboutery of canabis and it’s medical uses and such, I have to point out I’m a supporter of it in a controlled environment.

Getting stoned in a non controlled environment and expecting emergency services to help and assist is fine, but the emergency services should be able to charge.. on.. the .. basis.. being... canabis.. is ... illegal.

HTHs.

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?

Frustratingly, ED [i]is[/i] the most appropriate place for heavily intoxicated individuals, with appropriate staffing and support, because every now and then, these patients need active intervention to prevent their deaths.

Drac - Moderator
The legality would seem to have no relevance to the OP's question.
None what so every so no idea what bikebouy is on about.

You need to read my post and apply it to the question.
TBH I think that’s pretty easy to follow.

Unless....

bikebouy - Member
It does.

the question is should emergency services charge, in this instance due to the illegality of canabis use I think so.

Before you start on the whataboutery of canabis and it’s medical uses and such, I have to point out I’m a supporter of it in a controlled environment.

Getting stoned in a non controlled environment and expecting emergency services to help and assist is fine, but the emergency services should be able to charge.. on.. the .. basis.. being... canabis.. is ... illegal.

But intoxication isn't illegal. You're going to have to close that loophole before your illogical(and immoral) masterplan can be implemented.

jekkyl - Member

bit disappointed in STW tbh, there's a distinct lack of mountain/weed puns missing from this thread.

I was saving it for the follow up thread when someone gets stuck in a river, deep.

[quote=bikebouy ]the question is should emergency services charge, in this instance due to the illegality of canabis use I think so.

OIC. So the emergency services should also charge if you need rescuing if you crash your car when you're speeding. I guess all those drunks Drac rescues should also be charged - because interestingly whilst it's not illegal to be intoxicated from smoking weed, it is illegal to be drunk in a public place.

You'll probably also find it expensive if you fall off your bike at night and don't have pedal reflectors.

+1 aracer

it is illegal to be drunk in a public place

v8ninety - Member
it is illegal to be drunk in a public place
This might be technically true, but it's certainly not enforced.

You need to read my post and apply it to the question.
TBH I think that’s pretty easy to follow.

I have as have others no one has a clue what you mean.

Getting stoned in a non controlled environment and expecting emergency services to help and assist is fine, but the emergency services should be able to charge.. on.. the .. basis.. being... canabis.. is ... illegal.

There that makes it clearer.

Legality has nothing to do it with it. Speeding, underage drinking, intoxicated in a public place and driving while over the alcohol limit are all illegal. Should we leave them to die and rot or charge them too? Incidentally there is a charge for RTCs but hardly any health trust peruse as it costs more to chase it up then it creates.

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.

technically yes but it is very difficult to make that decision based on what is usually limited callout information. Situations often change during the callout and things can be much better, or worse, when you actually arrive.
Most commonly, teams will be sent out to stop a situation becoming worse. A good example of this is RNLI going out to dogs fallen down cliffs. You could argue a waste of time but if they don't go you get owners climbing down to attempt a rescue, then you end up with all sorts of bother.

We spent 3 hours searching a local hillside late on a sunday evening a couple of weeks ago after a distress flare was seen. We knew that there was almost certainly no-one needing help (who actually carries flares in the hills nowadays) and he area has good phone signal so you could call for help if you needed it. But how can you decide not to deploy a team, we don't have enough information to decide not to go.

Having said that, the Lake district team in particular seem to be seeing a big spike in callouts recently, from a manpower point of view it doesn't seem sustainable. Some of these volunteer teams are spending many more hours on incidents that paid full time fire fighters spend on shouts.

[quote=franksinatra ]Having said that, the Lake district team in particular seem to be seeing a big spike in callouts recently, from a manpower point of view it doesn't seem sustainable. Some of these volunteer teams are spending many more hours on incidents that paid full time fire fighters spend on shouts.

This is where we have an issue which needs addressing, because it's clearly not sustainable. MRT members are ordinary people who have proper jobs, families and social lives. Increased amounts of "waste of time" callouts is going to start putting pressure on them - not only because of the increased amount of time it's taking, but I suspect the reward from responding to such callouts is much lower. I can see some people leaving the teams and it being harder for the teams to recruit new members.

I suspect that the classic emergency services charging paradox would apply

Those most deterred from phoning would be the little old ladies who had fallen and broken their hip. ie. the ones who actually really needed help, but who didn’t want to be a bother or who were worried about getting into trouble for calling them out needlessly.

Having said that, the Lake district team in particular seem to be seeing a big spike in callouts recently, from a manpower point of view it doesn't seem sustainable. Some of these volunteer teams are spending many more hours on incidents that paid full time fire fighters spend on shouts.

This is just an obvious result of lots more people spending lots more time outdoors. I started MTBing in the early 90s and could easily do a ride around Gower (to pick a local tourist attraction) in winter and barely see anyone away from the roads. These days there will be people everywhere, walking cycling, dog-walking, whatever time of year.

Places like Pen-y-fan have seen a massive increase in the amounts of people walking to the top. I walked it recently, and laughed about the queue on top waiting to stand on the summit. But seeing people every 10-20m on the way up made it feel a little crowded for my taste.

And of course the ability to buy all your kit in supermarkets and follow extremely obvious tracks to the top of hills makes people feel like they've achieved something. But having all the kit doesn't help you read the weather or the landscape, or know how long it will realistically take to do the walk.

There's stupidity and there's stupidity:

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/18/bare-mountain-man-who-climbed-peak-in-pants-gets-hypothermia ]Knickers to Snowdon[/url]

Knowing the risks and assessing them is important, but people don't get taught. Pen-Y-Fan is a good example - I've twice turned back from climbing it from the northern approach because of bad weather.

Without wishing to derail the original question but to clarify the last post I made.

Once committed to a job the 'mobilising system' sees us as unavailable. Therefore it would deploy the next nearest resource - leading to a delay.

Also imagine being in the lift and half way through being released you're suddenly informed 'sorry mate, something more important come up and we're off' I think that'd go down very badly.

To explain the numbers a bit

2. X drivers, 1 x oic at lift, 1 x 2ic in lift motor room, 6 other fireys spread about over several floors opening doors, dealing with winding mechanisms, members of the public etc. Also we ride 5 a pump normally, we can't drop one or two off as the job doesn't require it. Consider the numbers a 'comprehensive' policy to use my insurance a analogy.

It’s a popular topic at the lifeboat station at end of the causeway where my mates are based, nothing new as it’s been mooted for years.. certainly when the MCA got involved and pushed back the idea when the Government were trying to get the RNLI to run the Coastguard Service... all those years ago.

Assessments based on severity and distance, vessels launched and manhours taken to cover the rescue..

Nothing came of it, obviously because the situation is the same now as it’s been for years.. except the removal of some helicopters from locations deemed “covered by..”

But that’s just “whataboutery”

Mountain biking isn’t illegal, so not sure why you think I’d object to that... but sure you’ll think I’ve got something against MTBers crashing.

Part of me says yes as people do stupid things that need a slap for or are just plain pathetic. Phoning for help because you are tired or late is silly. However, sadly, its hard to differentiate between genuine cock ups and moronic ones and our national policy of free help is a good one. A bust ankle on the top of Ben nevis in january is rather more deserving than a few blisters on the beach. Do you still get charged for an ambulance after a RTA?

This is where we have an issue which needs addressing, because it's clearly not sustainable. MRT members are ordinary people who have proper jobs, families and social lives. Increased amounts of "waste of time" callouts is going to start putting pressure on them - not only because of the increased amount of time it's taking, but I suspect the reward from responding to such callouts is much lower. I can see some people leaving the teams and it being harder for the teams to recruit new members.

I suspect that the classic emergency services charging paradox would apply

Those most deterred from phoning would be the little old ladies who had fallen and broken their hip. ie. the ones who actually really needed help, but who didn’t want to be a bother or who were worried about getting into trouble for calling them out needlessly.

Part of me says yes as people do stupid things that need a slap for or are just plain pathetic. Phoning for help because you are tired or late is silly. However, sadly, its hard to differentiate between genuine cock ups and moronic ones and our national policy of free help is a good one. A bust ankle on the top of Ben nevis in january is rather more deserving than a few blisters on the beach. Do you still get charged for an ambulance after a RTA?

So Lummox - are you telling me that there is no "chargeback" for lift rescues? That seems amazing.

I always assumed that there was a charge for that kind of thing, faulty corporate fire alarms etc? No?

We lived opposite a block of flats once and the alarm would go off a couple of times a week due to some fault or other. 2 fire engines used to turn up and hang around for 30 mins or so while it got reset..... are we really not charging for that? Bloody hell.

No they shouldn't because:
A. Everyone does stupid things at some point.
B. Everyone's definition of stupid is different so how could we agree on what's chargeable behaviour?

So Lummox - are you telling me that there is no "chargeback" for lift rescues? That seems amazing.

I always assumed that there was a charge for that kind of thing, faulty corporate fire alarms etc? No?

We lived opposite a block of flats once and the alarm would go off a couple of times a week due to some fault or other. 2 fire engines used to turn up and hang around for 30 mins or so while it got reset..... are we really not charging for that? Bloody hell.

Correct our service tried to introduce an extra charge for repeat offenders but it was deemed illegal as it was argued that they have paid already via local council tax.
Repeat offenders will now get a reduced attendance or only get an attendance if it's backed up by a 999 call.
It's no our job to reset panel, we will ask responsible person on site to do this if no one bothers to turn up and there is no fire we leave after 20mins. This is quite amusing at the expensive complex of flats at 3am

Correct our service tried to introduce an extra charge for repeat offenders but it was deemed illegal as it was argued that they have paid already via local council tax

outrageous.

I'm not saying it should be commonplace - but you should certainly be able to start proceedings against companies who are causing a disproportionately large amount of wasted hours due to a poorly fitted/maintained system.

Somebody should start an online petition - that's how things happen these days isn't it? 🙄

Getting stoned in a non controlled environment and expecting emergency services to help and assist is fine, but the emergency services should be able to charge.. on.. the .. basis.. being... cannabis.. is ... illegal.

Caller: Can you rescue us please?
MRT: Are you stoned?
Caller: Might be
MRT: We will charge you £X per person
Caller: Can't afford that
MRT: Sorry we won't come out, as it's your fault,and we have to charge as cannabis is illegal
Caller: But, I might die...
MRT: Not my problem mate

The news later that day : "4 hikers were left to die today by the emergency services, when they refused to go out to them because they had had taken cannabis, meanwhile Myrtle Knobcheese was rescued because she had gone up Helvellin in her slippers without realising how dangerous it could be..."

'A seperate place' would require funding, housing and staffing by relatively expensive clinicians proficient in airway and behaviour management as well as a security element to safeguard these staff. The funding, in order for it to be cost effective, would have to come from the budgets of the areas that it is providing relief to; namely NHS budgets. So better to look after these often unpleasant, occasionally obnoxious patients in ED, where you already have the experienced staff in situ, and all the options open for escalating care should someone become properly poorly.
Frustratingly, ED is the most appropriate place for heavily intoxicated individuals, with appropriate staffing and support, because every now and then, these patients need active intervention to prevent their deaths.

I even have an issue with having a "separate number" for calls to the emergency services. 'Freeing up 999 Call Handerlers' by having a second non emergency number means its the caller rather than the trained call hander that has to make the decision as to what does or doesn't constitute an emergency.

A caller with regard to the scenario above doesn't necessarily understand that its a situation that can escalate from a 'nuisance' to an 'emergency' in pretty short order.

You also get tragedies like the couple taking days to die, trapped in their car, on the M9 after an accident that was reported to 111. The 111 call was mis-handled anyway but it shouldn't have been a choice for the caller to make as to which number they called.

Macruisikeen,

It's inevitable that at some peak times you will have more people trying to call the police than they have to answer the calls. How happy would you be waiting in a queue telling you the next available operator will deal with you and the current waiting time is 10 minutes when someone has just broken into your house? Or even listening to the "press 1 for..." messages which help to avoid human staff being needed at all. Meanwhile Mrs Bobbins in reporting her cat missing, Mr Smith is complaining (for the third time tonight) about the neighbours having a party, Mr Jones is trying to work out which police station is nearest his house as he has to produce his documents and Miss Whatsit is sobbing down the phone as her boyfriend got lifted earlier in the evening and she wants to know which police station he is in. And Mr Cyclist is trying to recount the terrible driving on his commute this morning now that he has edited the video and uploaded it to YouTube. Meanwhile the burglars have helped themselves to your kitchen knives and are coming looking for your bikes and car keys.

In days of old people used to call the local police station if they had some non-emergency thing. I guess mobile phones and lack of phone books together with the fact the local station may not be manned at all times, means people tend not to do that. If they know it's not a 999 perhaps they wouldn't call at all without another number. It's not ridiculous to ask the person making a call to assess if they think it is an immediate emergency and call a different number if it is (where it can be upgraded if the call handler disagrees).

As Bruneep already said charging for nuisance calls/false alarms didn't work. Neither is a reduced attendance (see 2 in a van response to ring wood bin fire).

We 'work' with some 'partners' to reduce calls, but the honest answer is we always attend as the press response for not would be a nightmare.

Even if we did try and recover costs half the landlords and letting companies would never stump up and we'd still attend anyway.

Basically properly funded and resourced emergency services is about the only way to stay on top of the increasing number of calls. Certainly not huge cuts to funding under the austerity agenda!

Hampshire fire is even exploring medical response to earn more alternate funding- all because the ambulance service is struggling so hard to stay on top of it. I personally think it's not a road we as fire should be going down when there are more roles within our remit we are scraping to achieve. Mtfa and flooding as two recent and public examples.