Darwin Award Nominations

[billytheghillie]

I nominate the 2 Rodneys who set off on Sunday night to tackle some hills in the Lake District. Yes, they had to contact search and recue to be rescued. Apparently the mountain rescue were not going to respond as the conditions were too severe, but they did risking there own life and limb to rescue them. If it was up to me i would be sending them a very large bill.

[Dave at kelton]

9 minutes ago, billytheghillie said:

I nominate the 2 Rodneys who set off on Sunday night to tackle some hills in the Lake District. Yes, they had to contact search and recue to be rescued. Apparently the mountain rescue were not going to respond as the conditions were too severe, but they did risking there own life and limb to rescue them. If it was up to me i would be sending them a very large bill.

I would be locking them away! Idiots!

[Scully]

It must be annoying, admittedly, but those in the rescue teams are volunteers. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Gordon Bennett..........

[JKD]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

It must be annoying, admittedly, but those in the rescue teams are volunteers. 

Yup, who also risk their lives,,,,

Remember this guy ?

https://keswickreminder.co.uk/2023/09/19/mountain-rescue-volunteer-chris-lewis-was-taken-too-soon/

[billytheghillie]

6 minutes ago, JKD said:

Yup, who also risk their lives,,,,

Remember this guy ?

https://keswickreminder.co.uk/2023/09/19/mountain-rescue-volunteer-chris-lewis-was-taken-too-soon/

Yes, that was so sad, called out to 2 Rodneys during the lockdown.

[Scully]

54 minutes ago, JKD said:

Yup, who also risk their lives,,,,

Remember this guy ?

https://keswickreminder.co.uk/2023/09/19/mountain-rescue-volunteer-chris-lewis-was-taken-too-soon/

Yes, I remember him. 
I’m not disputing they risk their lives, but any that have been asked have stated they do not want people to be fined for their stupidity, they just want them to think it through before going. 
We don’t know, as far as I’m aware, that those rescued haven’t made a contribution. 
 

[Bigbob]

I can remember ferreting Largo Law and we where struggling to get up the hillside nearly on our hands and knees and a guy in a three piece suit and shoes passed us coming down he had mud up to his knees LOL wish i had got his story off him to see why he was there 

[Pushkin]

Bigbob commented 4 hours ago.

I can remember ferreting Largo Law and we where struggling to get up the hillside nearly on our hands and knees and a guy in a three piece suit and shoes passed us coming down he had mud up to his knees LOL wish i had got his story off him to see why he was there .

Ah those were the days Bob , when largo law was the biggest and steepest hill in the area - and still is😆

Pushkin

[JohnfromUK]

12 hours ago, Scully said:

It must be annoying, admittedly, but those in the rescue teams are volunteers. 

They are volunteers - but I'm sure they would prefer to do their chosen service on more deserving calls.  By that I mean those who have been sensible about the weather and conditions and have been suitably kitted out and attired for the walk/climb.  Everyone can have mishaps (fall, injury, medical event etc.) and the brave volunteers provide fantastic support.

To go out when there are weather warnings or conditions are unfavourable, or to go out ill equipped for the conditions is negligent, selfish and downright stupid - and puts the brave volunteers at risk.  It should carry suitable financial penalties to discourage others, and the funds can go towards helping the volunteers have better equipment and facilities.

Like so many things in life (and the 'nanny state' is making it much worse) - people need to learn to think ahead and to take responsibility for their actions.

[Scully]

You’re opening up a minefield there; who decides what are unfavourable conditions? Who prosecutes and decides what is what? Many folk can’t afford the proper gear but just want to go for a walk on a nice day. It’s a can of worms deciding who was negligent based on not only ever changing weather conditions but on what is the correct gear. 
It’s also not what those who do the rescuing want. 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

It’s a can of worms

It is a can of worms, but it can also be a matter of life and death - mainly for the 'victim', but occasionally for the brave volunteers ......... and that's why I think somehow something needs to be done to just make people thing and take responsibility for their actions.

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

but just want to go for a walk on a nice day.

The vast majority of dangerous incidents I don't think really start like that; they start with people going out on a very unsuitable day at a team of year where the risks are high.  I fully accept there will be many instances where the rescue services will be deployed due to mishaps, but (in my view) there are times when to set out was simply reckless and very stupid.  There is a difference between an unfortunate mistake and plain recklessness.

10 minutes ago, Scully said:

It’s also not what those who do the rescuing want.

I'm guessing, but perhaps those doing the rescuing might appreciate better kit/facilities, though not personal 'reward'?

[Westley]

Which backs up my theory, that 'Joe Public' are thick  !  I speak from spending my entire working life, dealing with them. Although being retired for 20 years, I see daily examples to back my theory  !   🙄

[chrisjpainter]

34 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is a can of worms, but it can also be a matter of life and death - mainly for the 'victim', but occasionally for the brave volunteers ......... and that's why I think somehow something needs to be done to just make people thing and take responsibility for their actions.

The vast majority of dangerous incidents I don't think really start like that; they start with people going out on a very unsuitable day at a team of year where the risks are high.  I fully accept there will be many instances where the rescue services will be deployed due to mishaps, but (in my view) there are times when to set out was simply reckless and very stupid.  There is a difference between an unfortunate mistake and plain recklessness.

I'm guessing, but perhaps those doing the rescuing might appreciate better kit/facilities, though not personal 'reward'?

Indeed. My parents (in their 60's and 70's) Have been spending a few days in North Wales. They were over in Llanberis for lunch, when a mum and daughter stopped them in the street looking a bit lost. They wanted to know where the start of the Snowdon path was so they could climb it. Did they have decent footwear? Did they have food? No. Did they have water? No. Did they have proper outer wear? No. Did they have a map? No. They just had an idea they wanted to climb Snowdon. In Winter. In the afternoon.

Mum, with all the patience of a saint, explained all this, explained the dangers and what the paths were like and what the conditions would be like both on the lowland slopes and at the top and explained how hard evacuations are even on a well walked path. you wonder what would have happened if they'd stumbled over the start to the path before they stumbled over my mother! I doubt Mountain Rescue would have been as polite if they'd been called out on a Saturday afternoon to two idiots in trainers and jeans stuck in the snow in sub zero temperatures. On a separate note, I wish the RNLI were as forthright in their advice giving to some of the loons we get on the sea. I've known MRT teams tear strips of people because of their stupidity. I bet that message sinks in pretty quick!

[Scully]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is a can of worms, but it can also be a matter of life and death - mainly for the 'victim', but occasionally for the brave volunteers ......... and that's why I think somehow something needs to be done to just make people thing and take responsibility for their actions.

The vast majority of dangerous incidents I don't think really start like that; they start with people going out on a very unsuitable day at a team of year where the risks are high.  I fully accept there will be many instances where the rescue services will be deployed due to mishaps, but (in my view) there are times when to set out was simply reckless and very stupid.  There is a difference between an unfortunate mistake and plain recklessness.

I'm guessing, but perhaps those doing the rescuing might appreciate better kit/facilities, though not personal 'reward'?

The volunteers themselves urge folk to stop and think, but have said themselves that they don’t want legislation to intervene. 
Yes, there are many simple accidents; we see folk walking their dogs around Ullswater most Sunday mornings, dressed in cheap puffer jackets, jeans and trainers. There are wet rocks and slimy tangles of tree roots and it would be very easy to sprain an ankle or break one. If you’re in your own there is then a chance of hypothermia. 
It will be mountain rescue who carry them out as an ambulance crew wouldn’t be equipped, yet it’s just a dog walk around the lake. 🤷‍♂️
Do we erect signs stating ‘appropriate footwear and clothing MUST be worn’ or ‘inappropriate footwear and clothing will be prosecuted’? Where do we start and where do we stop? 
Who deems what is appropriate or otherwise? 
You can’t legislate against stupid, and there are just as many in the seas and around our coasts as there are on the Fells. 
 

[JohnfromUK]

15 minutes ago, Scully said:

The volunteers themselves urge folk to stop and think, but have said themselves that they don’t want legislation to intervene. 
Yes, there are many simple accidents; we see folk walking their dogs around Ullswater most Sunday mornings, dressed in cheap puffer jackets, jeans and trainers. There are wet rocks and slimy tangles of tree roots and it would be very easy to sprain an ankle or break one. If you’re in your own there is then a chance of hypothermia. 
It will be mountain rescue who carry them out as an ambulance crew wouldn’t be equipped, yet it’s just a dog walk around the lake. 🤷‍♂️
Do we erect signs stating ‘appropriate footwear and clothing MUST be worn’ or ‘inappropriate footwear and clothing will be prosecuted’? Where do we start and where do we stop? 
Who deems what is appropriate or otherwise? 
You can’t legislate against stupid, and there are just as many in the seas and around our coasts as there are on the Fells. 
 

I can't disagree with what you say.  However I personally would like to see some sort of measures to try and;

• Strongly discourage people going out in unsuitable conditions
• Strongly discourage people going out without suitable equipment/gear
• Provide some means of penalising reckless risk taking
• Maybe use funds raised to provide equipment and facilities for the volunteer rescue teams

It is something that (as so often) is needed because some people won't take personal responsibility for their own safety.

As to 'how' it can be done - I have no idea, but presumably they do have some measures on ski slopes and in winter sports areas?  (Winter sports is a closed book to me)

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I can't disagree with what you say.  However I personally would like to see some sort of measures to try and;

• Strongly discourage people going out in unsuitable conditions
• Strongly discourage people going out without suitable equipment/gear
• Provide some means of penalising reckless risk taking
• Maybe use funds raised to provide equipment and facilities for the volunteer rescue teams

It is something that (as so often) is needed because some people won't take personal responsibility for their own safety.

As to 'how' it can be done - I have no idea, but presumably they do have some measures on ski slopes and in winter sports areas?  (Winter sports is a closed book to me)

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Going out in unsuitable conditions and inappropriate clothing is already strongly discouraged. 
You’re missing one important factor however, those who do the rescuing DON’T want legislation to intervene. 🤷‍♂️

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

• Provide some means of penalising reckless risk taking

The law is an ***; if you wish to discourage, or even ban, something, you need to be able to clearly define it.

 

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Maybe use funds raised to provide equipment and facilities for the volunteer rescue teams

Fines (generally) go straight to the 'consolidated fund' - i.e. the treasury.  With good reason,  because otherwise it creates perverse incentives to fine people. 

 

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

but presumably they do have some measures on ski slopes and in winter sports areas?  (Winter sports is a closed book to me)

For....what? 

The whole point of a ski slope is that it's a safe area, kept clear of excess snow that could cause avalanche, and away from trees for you to ski into.  Your ski pass pays for the ski patrol in case you do injure yourself, and your medical insurance pays for your hospital bill.  You do have medical cover including winter sports, don't you?

Now off-piste skiing is a whole different ball game.  There you need experienced guides and good life insurance.  Make sure it includes the cost of repatriating your frozen carcass.  There are only so many risks mountain rescue will take.

1 hour ago, Scully said:

You’re missing one important factor however, those who do the rescuing DON’T want legislation to intervene. 🤷‍♂️

So much this.  Trying to legislate for stupid people will only result in the universe inventing a better idiot.

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

You do have medical cover including winter sports, don't you?

No. 

As I said, winter sports are a closed book to me.  I have never been and do not envisage ever going.

[udderlyoffroad]

14 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

As I said, winter sports are a closed book to me.  I have never been and do not envisage ever going.

Shame.  You should try everything in life at least once, except for morris dancing and heroin.  Personally am not an adrenalin junkie and actively seek to avoid skiing areas.  Have tried it though. 

[Penelope]

Just now, udderlyoffroad said:

Shame.  You should try everything in life at least once, except for morris dancing and heroin.  Personally am not an adrenalin junkie and actively seek to avoid skiing areas.  Have tried it though. 

What, even a paddle in Barrymore's swimming pool?

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, udderlyoffroad said:

Shame.  You should try everything in life at least once, except for morris dancing and heroin.  Personally am not an adrenalin junkie and actively seek to avoid skiing areas.  Have tried it though. 

Well, you can't do everything.  I have done mainly shooting and fishing related outdoor activities and have done many 'walked up' days (driven days need very deep pockets) in the higher areas in Scotland for grouse (and occasionally ptarmigan).  I'm now at a time of life where I have to be a bit aware of physical (age related) limitations.

[Scully]

43 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The law is an ***; if you wish to discourage, or even ban, something, you need to be able to clearly define it.

 

Fines (generally) go straight to the 'consolidated fund' - i.e. the treasury.  With good reason,  because otherwise it creates perverse incentives to fine people. 

 

For....what? 

The whole point of a ski slope is that it's a safe area, kept clear of excess snow that could cause avalanche, and away from trees for you to ski into.  Your ski pass pays for the ski patrol in case you do injure yourself, and your medical insurance pays for your hospital bill.  You do have medical cover including winter sports, don't you?

Now off-piste skiing is a whole different ball game.  There you need experienced guides and good life insurance.  Make sure it includes the cost of repatriating your frozen carcass.  There are only so many risks mountain rescue will take.

So much this.  Trying to legislate for stupid people will only result in the universe inventing a better idiot.

You’ve attributed a quote to me which I didn’t make , but yes, I agree. 

[udderlyoffroad]

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

You’ve attributed a quote to me which I didn’t make , but yes, I agree. 

Apologies Scully, I just mashed the 'quote' button.  Must be the updated forum software... 😁

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm now at a time of life where I have to be a bit aware of physical (age related) limitations.

Quite; even if I wanted to ski, as a self employed contractor, cost/benefit/risk doesn't stack up for me.  And I'm not alone in this amongst my colleagues.

23 minutes ago, Penelope said:

What, even a paddle in Barrymore's swimming pool?

🤣  There are variations of that quote that does actually cover that scenario, but I figured the one I quoted was less likely to get a moderator's paw twitching over the 'lock thread' button...

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Apologies Scully, I just mashed the 'quote' button.  Must be the updated forum software... 😁

Quite; even if I wanted to ski, as a self employed contractor, cost/benefit/risk doesn't stack up for me.  And I'm not alone in this amongst my colleagues.

🤣  There are variations of that quote that does actually cover that scenario, but I figured the one I quoted was less likely to get a moderator's paw twitching over the 'lock thread' button...

No worries, I just couldn’t figure out how you’d done it! 🙂