Paying to be rescued?

[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

[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!