| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mtn Dog
Technohiker
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 3336 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue, WA |
|
Mtn Dog
Technohiker
|
 Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:52 am |
|
|
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Ringangleclaw
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 1559 | TRs | Pics
|
What would happen to the citizens of Arizona if the USA passed a law against racist senile old people with a chip on their shoulders?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowbrushy
Member
Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 6670 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound |
Oh Pilot of the storm who leaves no trace Like thoughts inside a dream Heed the path that led me to that place Yellow desert stream.
Oh Pilot of the storm who leaves no trace Like thoughts inside a dream Heed the path that led me to that place Yellow desert stream.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Voxxjin
made of hamburger
Joined: 05 Sep 2013
Posts: 657 | TRs | Pics
Location: Dupont |
|
Voxxjin
made of hamburger
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:37 am |
|
|
I know this has been talked about before on this site. And I still believe that in some instances the person being rescued should be billed. If there was a warning about not going somewhere (inside Ice Caves for example) and they need rescued because they ignored the sign, then I think they should be billed. However if you are just hiking along and twist your ankle, no should shouldn't be billed.
Yes I know it could turn into a slippery slope where one day you will have to carry Hiker's Insurance to protect yourself but I would hope that rational minds would win out on this. Then again I work for the Govt and should know better. 
As for Arizona's Stupid Motorist law, I support that.
Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war
Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7733 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:52 am |
|
|
These laws are easy to pass because most people are lazy and fearful. That sounds jaded but how many people have said "You go hiking by yourself out in the woods? You sleep alone out there? With the bears and the wolves and the bloodthirsty chipmunks?"
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:27 am |
|
|
| Christina Estes, reporting for KPHO Phoenix wrote: | | "...at least one Phoenix City Council member thinks the idea of a "stupid hiker" ordinance is worth considering."
"None of the other seven council members responded to our question about whether they support such an ordinance." |
so big deal. so Thelda Williams, who's been on the council for 26 years, suggests a completely moronic ordinance and this is news?
weren't there any man bites dog stories to run that day?
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:34 am |
|
|
AZ could save lots more $$ by charging homeowners for all firefighting costs where fire resulted from negligence of property owner ("stupid property owner law") and charging all negligent parties for all govt costs incurred re vehicle accidents ("stupid driver law"). But that won't happen because it's easier to target hikers when the electorate is comprised mostly of couch potatoes.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7733 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:48 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | so big deal. so Thelda Williams, who's been on the council for 26 years, suggests a completely moronic ordinance and this is news?
weren't there any man bites dog stories to run that day? |
Stupid Legislator Law. 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12831 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:55 am |
|
|
note that none of the other seven council members were even willing to comment.
but then, maybe they have aspirations of getting re-elected.
yeah... Steve's on the right track there... what we really need is a stupid spider-killer law!
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:42 am |
|
|
The stupid motorist law is very specific, it only applies to people who drive past barriers onto a flooded road and then need rescue. It has hardly ever resulted in any fines in the 20 years it has been on the books. A show pony law.
The crackpot lady also suggests banning hiking when it gets hot. Too bad the rescuers say summer is no busier than any other season.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coldrain108
Thundering Herd
Joined: 05 Aug 2010
Posts: 1858 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere over the rainbow |
| Voxxjin wrote: | | However if you are just hiking along and twist your ankle, no should shouldn't be billed. |
How about if you are walking down the street in SEA, on the way to the library, and you step wrong and break your ankle - is the ambulance ride free because it was an accident? What is different between this and doing the same in the woods? Why is one expected to be a free ride to the hospital but the other requires insurance in order for you not to be charged full price for the service. One (the free one) requires a much higher expenditure - helicopters, multiple folks on foot and a search.
The risks of hiking should be a deterrent, or at least a pause for contemplation, and sometimes only $$$ makes people assess their abilities realistically.
| Drinky Crow wrote: | | It has hardly ever resulted in any fines in the 20 years it has been on the books. A show pony law. |
or a successful deterrent to stupidity.
Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 12:02 pm |
|
|
Deterrent? Being killed, drowned, trapped perhaps, car destroyed, is no deterrent, but a maximum $2000 would be? Almost never billed even if it could be, and probably paid for by insurance? Sorry, I don't buy that for a second.
There is no deterrent for stupidity, because of the stupidity involved.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7733 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 12:03 pm |
|
|
| coldrain108 wrote: | | How about if you are walking down the street in SEA, on the way to the library, and you step wrong and break your ankle - is the ambulance ride free because it was an accident? What is different between this and doing the same in the woods? |
If it happens in the woods, you'll probably be rescued by volunteers whose motivation is good karma.
If it happens near the library, you'll be rescued by employees of a for profit corporation whose motive is $$$.
I hope that clears up any questions about what the difference between those two scenarios is.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 12:10 pm |
|
|
Does SAR bring the person right to the hospital for free? For say a sprained ankle, or other non life threatening injury? Seems unlikely, but I really have no idea how it works once the person has been rescued.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Tue Aug 25, 2015 12:16 pm |
|
|
The stupid motorist law is basically a scam anyway. They are trying to even charge the salaries of people who would have been paid regardless. If they were only charging out of pocket additional costs, it would be an OK idea in principle I guess, but people pay taxes to have employees already at work, then you have to pay again if they actually do anything for you? Ridiculous, double dipping from supposedly anti tax people. Typical hypocrites.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
