Curbing ‘Risk Compensation’ in New Hampshire
From the NYT:
“There has often been an appealing vein of common sense in New Hampshire, and that is true of its regulations for people who venture outdoors. The state has always done what it can to rescue hikers and skiers who get lost or in trouble. Since 1999, it has billed them for the costs of rescue if their behavior was reckless. But in July, the standard was changed. If you find yourself in trouble thanks to your own negligence, a lower threshold of responsibility, then you also may end up paying the cost for being rescued.
There is something a little peculiar about the need for a law like this. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is hoping not only to recoup some of its rescue costs, but also to warn hikers and skiers that their behavior in nature has consequences.
It’s hard to imagine Americans protesting about having to pay for their ambulance rides after getting sick at home, or injured in a highway crash. But most Americans live lives that are incredibly distant from nature. They often do not understand that venturing into the backcountry means entering a realm of purely personal responsibility.
The greater reach of cellphone service, while making rescue more likely, makes it easier to forget the risks. You can get just as lost while carrying a cellphone — even with good coverage — as you can without it.
That is New Hampshire’s trouble, and it is one of the reasons there is controversy over efforts to expand cellphone coverage in the national parks. That includes Yellowstone, where there are plans to expand the cellphone service that exists near developed areas, like Old Faithful. The backcountry is a world with rules of its own, enforced by nature itself. If that means billing visitors for the costs of their negligence, we say, fine by us.”
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Slashdot]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/slashdot.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
This entry was posted on Monday, January 19th, 2009 at 8:10 am and is filed under Risk. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
| 
January 20th, 2009 at 12:06 am
I know people who have told me they are hesitant to call the fire department because they think they will be billed. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But, for all I know, maybe you _are_ billed when you call the fire department. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me much.
Reading various stories surrounding this New Hampshire situation, I get the bizarre (and hopefully false) impression that the SAR people in New Hampshire don’t want to be SAR people anymore. Like EMS people who have to race at high speed (and considerable risk) to save the lives of obese heart-attack victims _who certainly knew better_ while they were chowing down super-size bacon-double cheeseburgers, part of the job of being in search-and-rescue is, unfortunately, rescuing idiots. It’s one of those costs of living in a free society.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2008/03/01/2003403603
Why not just adopt the “fire department solution” and just charge everyone a rescue fee? At $257000 per year, and 200 people a year, if you just hit them all with a $1500 charge, you would return a tidy 20% on the investment.
But then again:
“Over the past decade, the state has had little success in recovering costs from reckless hikers. Fifteen people or groups repaid the state US$23,780, less than half what the state says it paid for their rescues, according to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.”
Maybe a better business model would be insurance? Hikers buy a contract that gives them the right to call in for a rescue, anytime, anywhere. No contract, no rescue.
This is essentially one aspect to the SPOT Satellite Messenger service.
Alternatively, you might just disband the search-and-rescue in New Hampshire: “You are all on your own, as per the New York Times!”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/us/29rescue.html?n=Top/News/U.S./U.S.%20States,%20Territories%20and%20Possessions/New%20Hampshire
‘“We’re going out for an hour and not bringing food because it’s an hour,” Greg Wood, 28, said. “Is that negligent?” Mr. Wood and his brother planned to cross-country ski.’
My guess, Mr. Wood, is that you would be held negligent if you twisted your ankle and had the temerity to call for help.