Paying to be rescued?

[davereid]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3221852/Rescued-kayakers-reject-bill-for-service

Two kayakers plucked from the banks of the flooded Shotover River by helicopter after an empty kayak was spotted floating downstream have been billed $4000 for the rescue.

Queenstown Lakes District harbourmaster Marty Black said yesterday the Shotover River had been at its maximum in full flood, raging at about 260 cumecs on December 3, when an empty, upturned kayak was spotted floating past the Shotover Jet base.

Shotover Jet and all rafting operators had suspended operations for the day because the river was so high and dangerous.

"We put a helicopter up straight away ... we were sure we were looking for bodies because of the state of the river," Mr Black said.

The kayakers had been advised against going on the rapidly rising river, which was running at 130 cumecs when they put in and was close to 200 cumecs by the time the empty kayak was spotted, he said.

The two men, who were apparently experienced and living in the Queenstown area, should not have been up there, Mr Black said.

They had now been invoiced for almost two hours of helicopter flying and council staff time, totalling $4000, and were contesting the bill, claiming they didn't need rescuing, he said.

"Why should the community pay when it's a situation of their own making? It was not an option for us not to go – we must go (and search)," he said.

Mr Black said the pair had put in at MacLeod's Bluff and were retrieved from opposite sides of the river about 1km downstream. They had been "very pleased" to see the helicopter. The man from the upturned kayak had apparently got into difficulty when he hurt his finger, then lost his kayak, Mr Black said.

Although the men claimed conditions were fine further upstream, Mr Black said they should not have been kayaking on a rising river.

A friend driving the group's van had stopped off at a Skippers' resident's home to ask for help and the resident had raised the alarm.

Two weeks after this incident an empty jetboat was sighted floating below the Kawarau bungy bridge and bungy staff alerted Mr Black, who put a helicopter up immediately to search for any missing boaties.

"That guy had been fishing upstream and got into some quicksand – the boat took off before he could get out," Mr Black said.

The $55,000 to $60,000 boat had travelled through several rapids and miraculously escaped damage.

That boat owner was invoiced for about $1600, but had paid up happily.

[CookMySock]

LOL helicopter rescue for hurt finger. :laugh:

They should have waved the chopper off if they didn't want the assistance.

Steve

[davereid]

Yeah, I sort of wonder how it might apply to bikers.

You fall off your trail bike, you are fine, but some fine member of the public decides you need rescuing, and you get a $4000 account. I'm not sure waving the chopper away would stop the bill arriving, the mone was already spent.

Is it now to be a requirement that you only do things the council approve of, or you will get a bill for rescues you didnt commission ?

[Mully]

Shouldn't ACC be paying it - since his finger was injured.....

[Miscreant]

Yeah, I sort of wonder how it might apply to bikers.

You fall off your trail bike, you are fine, but some fine member of the public decides you need rescuing, and you get a $4000 account. I'm not sure waving the chopper away would stop the bill arriving, the mone was already spent.

Is it now to be a requirement that you only do things the council approve of, or you will get a bill for rescues you didnt commission ?

But the friend did ask for help and got help, so wasn't the rescue effectively commissioned?
The other point is that they were apparently advised not to go on the river. Whilst that in and of itself means little as some people will advise you against anything, but if you then need rescuing, well, why should we pay?

[davereid]

But the friend did ask for help and got help, so wasn't the rescue effectively commissioned?
The other point is that they were apparently advised not to go on the river. Whilst that in and of itself means little as some people will advise you against anything, but if you then need rescuing, well, why should we pay?

Yeah, its tricky... someone has to pay for the rescue - why it should always be the poor old taxpayer seems a bit harsh.

I can see all sorts of problems arising from this, a can of worms has been opened methinks..

[Usarka]

If they don't actually need rescuing then it should be the busy-body pole-toker that called the rescuers that should pay.

[rachprice]

I know when I was with search and rescue, if someone requested a helicopter they paid but if it was the search managers decision they didnt. Most gave some sort of donation anyway though

[sunhuntin]

i think in the kayakers case, it was needed cos how on earth did the guy with the hurt finger plan on getting down the river minus his kayak?? plus if they were advised not to go, then it was their own dumbass fault.

personally, i would happily pay the chopper bill if it was needed. hell, i would even pay the ambo bill if it came to that but i think acc covers that for accidents.

[p.dath]

A good question. Different people are prepared to take different risks. The public is happy to accept paying for the result of some risk, but there is obviously a line, where the public consider "adventurers" to have been negligent, and no longer want to pay for their risk.

It would be interesting to know the premise under which the emergency services were created.

Perhaps there needs to be some test, like for dangerous or careless driving. Would a "prudent" kayaker have taken the journey?

Then again, perhaps the mere threat of a fine will be enough to deter those taking extreme risk. If you know you are going to have to pay to be rescued, because you wont undertake some riskier activities (at least not without insurance).

A great threat question. At what point do you remove someone's personal choice, and say, no, you can't do it, it's too dangerous and society does not want to pay for the consequences.

If someone was 100% likely to need rescuing, should they be allowed to proceed? What about 80% likely? 50%? Where is the line?

[Mikkel]

i think in the kayakers case, it was needed cos how on earth did the guy with the hurt finger plan on getting down the river minus his kayak?? plus if they were advised not to go, then it was their own dumbass fault.

personally, i would happily pay the chopper bill if it was needed. hell, i would even pay the ambo bill if it came to that but i think acc covers that for accidents.

Maybe you'd just wait it out - we don't know the details. I'd happily go hungry for a little while to save $4000 if you know what I mean.
If none of the kayakers had requested the rescue it doesn't seem right to bill them for it.

Another point: I fail to see the point of sending the helicopter out looking for bodies. I mean, if they expected someone to be dead why the bloody rush?

Maybe the solution is to install a cardswiper in the helicopter - then people can pay up front if they feel like being rescued. (and yes, I am not serious)

[jim.cox]

i how on earth did the guy with the hurt finger plan on getting down the river minus his kayak??.

By Swimming.....

[Squiggles]

They raised the alarm bell...

[crazyhorse]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3221852/Rescued-kayakers-reject-bill-for-service

................... empty kayak was spotted floating downstream ..................The kayakers had been advised against going on the rapidly rising river, ...........................by the time the empty kayak was spotted, he said. .............They had been "very pleased" to see the helicopter

Well, I think this kinda speaks for itself. They were advised not to go out, and they did, they were also happy to see the rescuers - so, its just another example of "user pays"

[avgas]

Shouldn't ACC be paying it - since his finger was injured.....

Haha what ACC pay for something? your kididng right

[Ixion]

Well, I think this kinda speaks for itself. They were advised not to go out, and they did, they were also happy to see the rescuers - so, its just another example of "user pays"

Yes, but by the Harbour master . Would he be a kayaking expert (I genuinely ahve no idea).

Sort of like, lots of helpful busybody cagers have over the years advised me "You can't/shouldn't do xyz". When I'm on a bike. The capabilities (or otherwise) of which they have no idea.

I think the "they were advised not to so should pay" can only apply if the advice was unequivocal, and from someone who was expert in the specific activity.

Otherwise it's promoting any self important numpty to determine what everybody else should do.

[Miscreant]

Perhaps there needs to be some test, like for dangerous or careless driving. Would a "prudent" kayaker have taken the journey?

Then again, perhaps the mere threat of a fine will be enough to deter those taking extreme risk. If you know you are going to have to pay to be rescued, because you wont undertake some riskier activities (at least not without insurance).

A great threat question. At what point do you remove someone's personal choice, and say, no, you can't do it, it's too dangerous and society does not want to pay for the consequences.


No need to over complicate things. It's not a fine and there is no need for one.
If I fuck up I pay, why shouldn't I? Ok acc doesn't work strictly this way, but that is a specifically created exception.
So by all means these guys should have the right to do what the hell they like, but, be man enough to accept the consequences, one of which may mean having to pay for your own rescue.

[crazyhorse]

Yes, but by the Harbour master . Would he be a kayaking expert (I genuinely ahve no idea).

Sort of like, lots of helpful busybody cagers have over the years advised me "You can't/shouldn't do xyz". When I'm on a bike. The capabilities (or otherwise) of which they have no idea.

I think the "they were advised not to so should pay" can only apply if the advice was unequivocal, and from someone who was expert in the specific activity.

Otherwise it's promoting any self important numpty to determine what everybody else should do.

I do agree with you -- it's not right, but if they were told not to go, and did, I guess they look at it from the other aspect, that they then were asking for trouble and deliberately went out..... I'm no expert either, and that's my interpretation :done:

[Ixion]

No need to over complicate things. It's not a fine and there is no need for one.
If I fuck up I pay, why shouldn't I? Ok acc doesn't work strictly this way, but that is a specifically created exception.
So by all means these guys should have the right to do what the hell they like, but, be man enough to accept the consequences, one of which may mean having to pay for your own rescue.

Yes, but the issue here was that the rescued persons claim they did not fuck up, and didn't need to be rescued. Should someone who is NOT is trouble ahve to pay a big bill because the local Penalope Panicpuss hits her giant panic button ?

It does happen. F'instance, once, not so long ago, I pulled Petal out of storage, and started her up. Now, having sat unused a while, her crankcases had a bit of oil in them. So, I left her running for a bit to clear. And some officious idiot of a neighbour called the fire brigade. Like hell would I be willing to pay for that false alarm.

[duckonin]

Yes, but the issue here was that the rescued persons claim they did not fuck up, and didn't need to be rescued. Should someone who is NOT is trouble ahve to pay a big bill because the local Penalope Panicpuss hits her giant panic button ?

It does happen. F'instance, once, not so long ago, I pulled Petal out of storage, and started her up. Now, having sat unused a while, her crankcases had a bit of oil in them. So, I left her running for a bit to clear. And some officious idiot of a neighbour called the fire brigade. Like hell would I be willing to pay for that false alarm.

Exactly....

[Miscreant]

Yes, but the issue here was that the rescued persons claim they did not fuck up, and didn't need to be rescued. Should someone who is NOT is trouble ahve to pay a big bill because the local Penalope Panicpuss hits her giant panic button ?

It does happen. F'instance, once, not so long ago, I pulled Petal out of storage, and started her up. Now, having sat unused a while, her crankcases had a bit of oil in them. So, I left her running for a bit to clear. And some officious idiot of a neighbour called the fire brigade. Like hell would I be willing to pay for that false alarm.

Yes but were petal upside down in a swolen river and you were nursing a broken finger it may be a different story.

Surely in your case above we should pay, clearly you weren't in danger and didn't need rescuing. Emergency services can only act in good faith and must respond if there is doubt. Can you imagine the stink if say the police were to send a taxi to piha to collect a chick who feared for her life and something happened to her?

They must act, in doing will get it wrong from time to time, that's life, that's what we pay them for.

[Ixion]

There are three possibilities :

1. I am indeed in deepish shit. And very glad to have assistance. in which case I would think it reasonable to pay
1. I am in a bit of bother. I could get myself extricated but, all in all, some help is welcome. Again, it seems reasonable to pay. I may not be so happy about it, depending on how much is involved.
3 I am not really in any danger or difficulty at all. I can sort myself out and don't need help at all. 'Rescueres' have turned up simply because some officious idiot made an ill informed panic call. I do not see why i should pay for their stupidity . Rather the person who turned in the false alarm without checking facts should pay.

If I were out in the backblocks (not on Petal though! Petal is many things, but an offroader is definitely not one of them ), with a broken finger, I would say that was (3). A broken finger would certainly not be enough to prevent me making my own way home. I do not need rescuers. Piss off, I didn't ask for you.

A broken finger and a bike upside down in a river, is probably (2). I'd get myself going again, one way or another, but it might be a fraught process. I'd probably be glad of some help.

A broken LEG and bike upside down in the river, would be (1) I think. HELPPPP !

I don't know enough about kayaking to make a call on the facts of the reported case.

[Waxxa]

As a whitewater kayaker and instructer for many years this is what I read into it.

Two guys went kayaking down a river which was swollen due to recent rain. Nothing unusual about that particularly if you are an experienced kayaker, grade 3 to grade 5 rivers, no problems. I've done it myself as you need water in a river to kayak and in NZ , winter is kayaking season.

The problem here is that one of the kayakers lost his kayak i.e. he capsised and didn't 'roll up' had to bail out of his boat (which is the absolute last thing you do when kayaking in grade 3,4,5 rivers) and broke a finger in the process.

now for a lone kayaker to 'rescue' another in those conditions when there is only two of you (which is another no-no, you should always have a minimum of three in your party for exactly these reasons) would be outright foolish if not lethal.

So, these guys stuffed up on a couple of basics and then found themselves requiring outside help.

[Usarka]

The "experts" advice is always conservative because they'll get in the shit if somthing goes wrong.

[Toot Toot]

When there is injury involved then ACC will pay for the helicopter IF THE HELICOPTER TRANSPORTS THEM TO A MEDICAL FACILITY ONLY.
Otherwise a "bill" is sent to the recipient. It is not a bill that can be enforced however (by Baycorp or the like).
Effectivly it is a request for a donation, although it is not worded as such and not common knowledge that is just a "donation request". All rescue organisations do this, it is standard practice for the likes of Coastgaurd etc who rely on these to survive.
Most people happily pay part, all, or above the requested amount, nearly all sign up as members afterwards.
Sometimes you get arseholes who write in to the media objecting, this is what has happened here.

[rachprice]

. Would a "prudent" kayaker have taken the journey?



I think you will find they don't exist, they are all mad! Haha




I don't know enough about kayaking to make a call on the facts of the reported case.

A upturned kayak down a swollen river minus a person is definitely reason to start a search!
Most kayakers don't lose their boats, those that do are generally out of their depth!

[swbarnett]

"Why should the community pay when it's a situation of their own making? It was not an option for us not to go – we must go (and search)," he said.
This is absolute bollox! The responsibility for the decision to rescue someone lies completely and solely with the rescuer. The rescuee has no bearing on the decision except to provide an opportunity for the rescuer to excercise their right to make up their own mind.

Charging for a rescue, irrespective of how stupid someone thinks the rescuee was, sets a dangerous precident that will inevitably lead to yet more and more control of our lives by the so-called authorites.

[Jantar]

Despite the advisability of otherwise of kayaking the Shotover when its running high, the major error in this case was made by the harbour master, Marty Black. He called the helicopter himself, hence there is a bill to be paid. If he had notified the police, and they called the helicopter, then the rescue would be paid for out of the public purse.

So the question here is "Who pays the bill?" If Marty Black followed the correct procedure then the kayakers would not receive a bill, though they would be asked for a donation. Should they now be asked to pay the full cost of the rescue because Marty Black didn't follow procedure?

[Drunken Monkey]

A upturned kayak down a swollen river minus a person is definitely reason to start a search!
Most kayakers don't lose their boats, those that do are generally out of their depth!

So you don't think people are allowed to sit and wait it out on the rocks until the river level drops? Or any other myriad of reasonable answers as to why you may lose your kayak, yet not require emergency assistance. Perhaps we should send a police search squad and an ambo out every time someone doesn't come home on time, heck they *might* be in danger and require assistance.

In saying that, could a little bit of knowledge have helped? If they knew the hand signals for "ok down here", they may have been able to turn the chopper away??

[rachprice]

So you don't think people are allowed to sit and wait it out on the rocks until the river level drops? Or any other myriad of reasonable answers as to why you may lose your kayak, yet not require emergency assistance. Perhaps we should send a police search squad and an ambo out every time someone doesn't come home on time, heck they *might* be in danger and require assistance.

In saying that, could a little bit of knowledge have helped? If they knew the hand signals for "ok down here", they may have been able to turn the chopper away??

They could have waited it out for sure, but again most kayakers don't lose their boats even if they are just waiting
What would you prefer....that they didnt search for them when tis possible someone could be in a whole world of trouble?? A helipcopter is probably the quickest and best way to search for someone in a swollen river where time would be of the essence!

[swbarnett]

What would you prefer....that they didnt search for them when tis possible someone could be in a whole world of trouble??
When is it NOT possible someone could be in a whole world of trouble??

[rachprice]

When is it NOT possible someone could be in a whole world of trouble??

Yeah I guess....just having done some kayaking myself, if I saw an upturned boat in a swollen river I would assume the worst also. I don't believe that the people who made the decision to call a search made the wrong one.

[Jantar]

..What would you prefer....that they didnt search for them when tis possible someone could be in a whole world of trouble?? A helipcopter is probably the quickest and best way to search for someone in a swollen river where time would be of the essence!
But it should be the police to make that call, not the harbourmaster.

[Jantar]

Yeah I guess....just having done some kayaking myself, if I saw an upturned boat in a swollen river I would assume the worst also. I don't believe that the people who made the decision to call a search made the wrong one.
So would you call the police, or would you ring the helicopter company yourself?

[swbarnett]

Yeah I guess....just having done some kayaking myself, if I saw an upturned boat in a swollen river I would assume the worst also. I don't believe that the people who made the decision to call a search made the wrong one.
I agree and applaud their compassion.

What I don't like is the ascertion that the rescuee is responsible for initiating the rescue and all costs involved. Even if a person is in trouble and asks to be rescued the responsibility for the decision to actually perform the rescue lies with the rescuer.

[Drunken Monkey]

Then nobody should be billed for that service, that is something we all have to accept and pay for out of the tax pool.

[swbarnett]

Then nobody should be billed for that service, Definately, nobody should ever be "billed" for a rescue. If someone did that to me they woulld never see a cent. However, if I was sent a cost breakdown for the rescue and asked to contribute what I can then they would definately see some money coming their way (you catch more flies with honey).

If, as a private individual, I decide to rescue someone then I take on the responsibility for all personal costs associated with this. For example, if I decide to drive someone to a hospital I will pay for the petrol.

If, as a member of a rescue organisation (fire, police, rescue chopper service etc.), I decide to rescue someone then the organisation I belong to takes on the responsibility for all costs associated with my part of the rescue (this is the decision the organisation made when I was hired for this job). The organisation must decide, in advance, how to build up a reserve of money to fund future rescues. Be it through tax bassed funding, donations or some other income stream.


that is something we all have to accept and pay for out of the tax pool.
Yes and no.

This is our choice as a tax paying society. As a collective we must decide just how much money we are willing to contribute. If this is insufficient to maintain a particular rescue service and they cannot get the money elsewhere then that service will cease to exist. Society has made the decision (informed or not) that that form of rescue is not worth the financial cost.

There comes a point where each individual must decide how much of their lifestyle they are willing to sacrifice so that someone else may live. At the extreme we must ask ourselves "am I willing to starve so that someone else may live?". This applies equally to all forms of tax funding - health, education, emergency services. Even what quality of road we're willing to pay for.

[rachprice]

But it should be the police to make that call, not the harbourmaster.

Was it? I didn't quite catch that, I assumed it was the search and rescue team (run through the police generally)


So would you call the police, or would you ring the helicopter company yourself?

The police....didn't realise it was a private search


I agree and applaud their compassion.

What I don't like is the ascertion that the rescuee is responsible for initiating the rescue and all costs involved. Even if a person is in trouble and asks to be rescued the responsibility for the decision to actually perform the rescue lies with the rescuer.

I never said I think they should pay...only commented that I have been in situations where they have and that I think given the circumstances calling a search was the right decision, if gone through the correct system (search and rescue)

[swbarnett]

I never said I think they should pay...only commented that I have been in situations where they have and that I think given the circumstances calling a search was the right decision, if gone through the correct system (search and rescue)
Understood and agreed.