Hikers Rescued in N.H.

Two Canadian hikers were rescued in the New Hampshire mountains. It seems they had wilderness knowledge and proper equipment for the 3 day hike. But they were stopped by fog and snow that severely limited visibility. They then ran out of fuel. When they didn't show up at the Centre at the end of the trail when expected, a search was launched. Here is a local newspaper account, followed by a discussion by readers. It seems some people have complained about spending money on rescuing people from the wilderness.

By LORNA COLQUHOUN
New Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent

Carroll – The two Canadian hikers overdue since Thursday were found safe today and reunited with their families just before 12:30 p.m.
Gabriel Fortin, 30, of Gatineau, Que., and Stephanie Desilets, 27, of Ottawa, had set off Tuesday for a southern traverse of the Presidential Range, said Fish and Game Lt. Doug Gralenski. The two were reportedmissing late yesterday and because of the conditions and lack of daylight, search crews did not get on the mountain until early today.
They were found in the Dry River area and flown back to the AMC Highland Center in Crawford Notch. They did not appear to need medical attention.
Searchers were on the ground and in the air in a sweeping area around Crawford Notch. By noon, a New Hampshire Army National Guard helicopter and about 30 people were on the scene.
Edmands Path and the Ammonoosuc Ravine," Gralenski said just before noon. "There's a second group on the north end of Great Gulf and the ridgeline between Mount Jefferson and Mount Washington."
Conditions today are mild for the time of year, he said.
"It's not too bad," he said. "The cloud cover is hindering the helicopter search up high."
The pair was last seen Wednesday, departing the Randolph Mountain Club's Gray Knob cabin on Mount Adams, where they had spent Tuesday night. They had planned to camp Wednesday night near Mount Eisenhowerand come out late Thursday at the Appalachian Mountain Club's Highland Center at the top of Crawford Notch, Gralenski said.
While the weather Wednesday was mild, it turned into rain above treeline and the winds began picking up, he said.
"Thursday was good, but it ended with the winds kicking up and they blew significantly, around 90 mph," he said.
Officials believe the pair were fairly well prepared.
Members of both families had arrived in Crawford Notch to await news.

--------------------

YOUR COMMENTS

Let me see - 'these people' pay 8.5% rooms and meals tax, plus they buy lots of stuff when here. Oh, and they buy alcohol, cigarettes and food and lodging. They go to tourists sites and pay camping fees. And golf here.

Yeah - it seems pretty petty to complain every time a tourist needs help. Especially when this state lives or dies base don how much they spend here.

Keep complaining about tourists and you will get your wish - none will come.

Then you can really complain about your taxes going up.
- Art, Portsmouth

I can't believe that there are folks here giving these people a hard time. I am part of a search and rescue team and (not one that was called to this rescue though we were put on standby.) these people were well prepared from what I can tell and if you're really complaining about the money spent on this than know that my group is funded almost completely out of our own pockets and is entierly voulnteer. We go out to many times a year and we don't complain if it is someone unprepared or somone completely prepared when we are out risking our own lives. Everyone is a life worth saving. So you can all sit at home and talk about your tax dollars but if you ever go hiking and need help I think that you will quickly change your tune!
- Chester, Wilder, VT

P.S. They also had snowshoes, tent, and GPS, etc.
- Pam, Canada

To the comments slagging these Canadian hikers, oh come on! Clearly these hikers were prepared. Sometimes things just happen. Do you think ANY OF US in B.C. here were foaming at the mouth with displeasure at our rescue team being first on the scene in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Lafayette, Louisiana? Not to mention that our guys and gals are pulling the lion's share of NATO effort in Afghanistan! So come on and show a little compassion and heart!

As for the more gracious comments, thank you and God Bless those involved in the rescue effort! Good news story.
- Pam, Canada

It's the same ole , year after year . Next month when a day over 65 or 70 F some idiots will try to climb Mt. Washington . Then they will be dealing with a mountain that has the highest wind velocity recorded to date . Too bad when the sun goes down and that sweater mom gave them for christmas isn't so warm . Now , our guys have to risk saving them from their own ignorance .
- Lew, Manchester

This is actually a very important debate to have. The reality is that while a response to a "fire" is an entitlement - we don't get charged by the fire department when our house goes up in flames, we DO pay for ambulance services.
Winter hiking in the White Mountains is an inherently risky and dangerous endeavor that more people attempt each year and I would argue from what I've seen, a smaller percentage of these are actually prepared for the potential outcomes.

I think that we should be asking questions about when hikers - and others engaged in inherently risky behaviors should pay for the efforts to rescue them.

In this particular case, the major negligence on the part of these hikers was educating their families about when to be concerned.

Being a day late in the Whites - if the team is prepared and skilled and strong, shouldn't be cause for alarm.

If it's a bunch of hacks who have equipment and no judgement or experience, they should absolutely pay for their rescue efforts.

Determining the difference is where the real issue is. I know that NH has been debating this issue for a long time and I hope the dialogue continues.

Just because the mountains are there doesn't mean YOU belong in them. Be prepared, be strong, and as Paul Petzholdt - the legendary mountaineer liked to say, "Know what you know, and know what you don't know."
- shannon, Dover

Tim...Agreed! Everyone is an expert in the comfort of their own home.

NH is dependent on tourism. This includes hikers. Yes, the occasional 1% of hikes will end badly, resulting in rescue. What should we do? Outlaw outdoor activity? The result would be a devasted tourism industry. I believe rescues are inevitable in this state and should be accounted for in the budget.
- Craig, Manchester, NH

This is actually a very important debate to have. The reality is that while a response to a "fire" is an entitlement - we don't get charged by the fire department when our house goes up in flames, we DO pay for ambulance services.
Winter hiking in the White Mountains is an inherently risky and dangerous endeavor that more people attempt each year and I would argue from what I've seen, a smaller percentage of these are actually prepared for the potential outcomes.

I think that we should be asking questions about when hikers - and others engaged in inherently risky behaviors should pay for the efforts to rescue them.

In this particular case, the major negligence on the part of these hikers was educating their families about when to be concerned.

Being a day late in the Whites - if the team is prepared and skilled and strong, shouldn't be cause for alarm.

If it's a bunch of hacks who have equipment and no judgement or experience, they should absolutely pay for their rescue efforts.

Determining the difference is where the real issue is. I know that NH has been debating this issue for a long time and I hope the dialogue continues.

Just because the mountains are there doesn't mean YOU belong in them. Be prepared, be strong, and as Paul Petzholdt - the legendary mountaineer liked to say, "Know what you know, and know what you don't know."
- Shannon, Dover, NH

It is not stated , that these hikers were not prepared, or needed to be rescued. To assume these hikers were acting in any way irresponsibly is unfair. This is obviously a misunderstood subject. If they were prepared and were not acting
recklessly, they should not be fined. I'm glad they're safe. I hope the day never comes, that we have to pay for any type of rescue. There are so many wasteful ways the government chooses to
spend our tax dollars. To save a life isn't one of them.
- dj, fremont
I'm glad they are safe, and their families are much relieved you can be sure. They should be given the cost of their rescue search, and payment should be worked out privately. None of us wish for bad things to happen to us, so lets not light the torches and rush the castle.
- Susan, Manchester, NH

As noted in the article, Gray Knob is operated by the Randolph Mountain Club, not the AMC. Perhaps they left their plans/route with the AMC, as any well-prepared winter hikers might. This article is mum on who called in the rescue; however, the situation appears to be a far cry from wandering off drunk into the woods and calling for help on one's cell phone. I'm glad they're safe and hope none of the 30 searchers were injured.
- Dave, Norwich, VT

I cannot tell from the article, whether or not they "truely" needed help. It sounds like they were obviously prepared for winter conditions. I have gone on many multi-night hikes traversing the pemi wilderness, and other remote areas. There was one trip I was on where we were delayed due to inclement weather, but continued to press on to complete the trip and was a day late. I would be pissed if I was held responsible for search and recovery efforts if I truely did not need the help. I do understand worried family members could trigger a false call like this. I would hope that some common sense would be used when charges are brought.
- Chris, Goffstown

Our governor is looking for ways to raise money. A "dumb tax" would help the state and have these rocket scientists paying for their rescue. Maybe more of a "stupid fine" would work. If you get caught being stupid - you pay.
- John A., Manchester, NH

-Great idea John. The way I see it, the democratic-socialist party will be bankrupt in just a matter of days.
- David Parent, Manchester

Typical WMUR reporting at it's best. A mountain rescue sure makes for a great headline, but there is no real reporting here. This article leaves a lot of questions. Why were they airlifted off the mountain if they were not injured? Officials believe they were well prepared. In what way? An extra 3 days out, especially in the winter is a lot of time. What was the cause of their delay? Without these questions being asked and answered it is almost impossible for the average member of the public and legislature to come to an agreement as to whether these types of rescues are an entitlement, like basic fire and police, or a privilege for those who choose more adventurous forms of recreation.
- Alicia, Manchester

Yay! Make 'em pay. Bringing hard currency into the U.S. C'mon Canadians! We need a few more of these expeditions to help pay for NH Department Commissioners pay raises. With a little effort we can make this a major industry,

New slogan - I called it

"Get Lost in NH!"
- Biff, Canterbury

Bob, why on earth would the AMC be billed for the cost of the rescue?!? That's one of the most ignorant comments I've read here in some time. The mountains and trails were here long before the AMC. They do significant work improving the recreational opportunities for tourists to come and enjoy here in NH. And yes, some of them do get lost or injured and require help from the state, though the percentage who need to be rescued is incredibly small. And you can't ignore the fact that we receive a lot of tax revenue from those who come to enjoy the outdoors when they stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, buy gas and booze here, etc. If you're concerned about how much it costs for these rescues, perhaps your energies would be better spent convincing the state to seek reimbursement from those who are truly at fault, not the AMC.
- Jeff, Conway

Our governor is looking for ways to raise money. A "dumb tax" would help the state and have these rocket scientists paying for their rescue. Maybe more of a "stupid fine" would work. If you get caught being stupid - you pay.
- John A., Manchester, NH

I am not a huge fan of the AMC, but why should they be required to pay for this? I understand NH residents want to save money and are tired of paying for rescues. My family probably spends $7,000-$8,000 per year in the white mountains. How many of these residents complaining about paying for the rescues, are complaining about all the money brought into the state by tourists?
- Scott, Windsor,CT

I'm very happy that they are safe . I don't vare if they are from N.H. ,Ma. , Ha. , Vt. , Iraq , Iran , Russia or Vatican City . They should have to pay for the rescue efforts .
- Lew, Manchester

Bob, While I agree that it is a problem that we are paying for these rescues, we also have to pay for digging snowmobilers out of the lakes, drowning kayakers, sunk boats, and any other missing or lost soul in in nature. This isn't isolated to the hiking community.

The AMC has nothing to do with this. They area private club that, in reality, very few visitors to the mountains are a part of.

I don't have the solution, just pointing out this isn't an AMC-problem.
- Chris, Bedford, NH

Why should the AMC pay for rescues? Your tax dollars pay for local police and fire too when they have to respond to emergencies caused by the stupid acts of some individuals.

At least with the mountain rescues, the State has a law in place to charge back the rescue fees to the hikers if they are deemed to have been unprepared. Maybe police and fire should have a similar option!
- Joy, Bedford

Does the federal government pay anything for the rescues? Everyone pays a "user fee" for those stickers.
- Steve, Franconia

Bob, Why should the AMC have to pay for the costs? If anything the hikers themselves should have to pay for their own rescue. This argument has been ongoing for a couple years and I'm pretty sure the state has the right to recoup fees associated with a rescue due to negligence of the hikers and it does not come out of your pocket.
- Jay, goffstown

Bob, I'm a NH taxpayer too and I also pay for many state services that I will probably never use or need, but I am glad those services are there for those who do need them. It's part of living in a civilized society.
- Richard, Manchester

Queue the angry, frothing couch potatoes whining about their taxes.
- Tim, Concord

I'm hoping for their safe return. And I'm really hoping that "snowshoes, a tent and a GPS unit" wasn't ALL the equipment they had with them!
Good luck to the rescue team, as well, they are amazing folks.
- Chris, Manchester

Shouldn't the Appalachian Mountain Club pay for the costs incurred to find the hikers. I do hope that are found safe and sound, however, these are regularly occurring events. As a NH Taxpayer I end up paying for this sort of thing.
- Bob, Salem, NH

_________________

"The monkeys are throwing stuff at me again."
-Survivorman in Costa Rica

They will complain like that until they get lost and get found, then maybe they will understand where their money is going...if they take the time to stop and think about it Rolling Eyes

_________________
We only have one Earth, take care of her and she will take care of you. ~ probably someone else

New Hampshire actually has a law that allows the director of the fish & game department to charge the full cost of a search and rescue operation to the people rescued, if he considers them to have been "negligent."

There's no provision for appeal, no hearing, no due process.

The day will come, if this kind of thinking wins out, when you'll need to show proof of SAR insurance to get a fishing license, a hunting license, or to reserve a backcountry campsite.

I just moved to NH and I can see both sides

1) Anyone who does into the wilderness for a big distance and doesn't take a good say extra 20% - 50% of fuel is really silly IMHO.

2) They had a tent/GPS/snowshoes so it seems like they could have walked out if needed

That being said I doubt they would pass a law in NH saying you have to have SAR's training to get any type of license, I know I would fight it along with the NHLA (New Hampshire Liberty Alliance) 100%

You already have a law that allows the director of F&G to bill the victim for 100% of the SAR cost on his whim, with no provision for appeal.

If this kind of billing becomes normal, the next step is insurance. People can't afford to pay those kinds of bills. And since people can't pay without insurance, you make insurance mandatory. This is exactly the rationale behind mandatory car insurance. There is no point in billing people who can't pay; if the state wants to recover its costs, the obvious step is to make insurance mandatory.

It's the logical outcome of billing the victim for the cost of rescue.

Well, im just glad that here in BC there is no such thing or ever will be a manditory SAR insurance to go Hiking or camping etc.

_________________
A Knifeless Man is a Lifeless Man
Canadian To The Core
Carry Less by Knowing More
Knowledge Weighs Nothing

Andrew_S wrote:

You already have a law that allows the director of F&G to bill the victim for 100% of the SAR cost on his whim, with no provision for appeal.

If this kind of billing becomes normal, the next step is insurance. People can't afford to pay those kinds of bills. And since people can't pay without insurance, you make insurance mandatory. This is exactly the rationale behind mandatory car insurance. There is no point in billing people who can't pay; if the state wants to recover its costs, the obvious step is to make insurance mandatory.

It's the logical outcome of billing the victim for the cost of rescue.

Yeah but NH is the only state that doesn't have mandatory Car Insurance. I am curious as to how many times they have used the provision.

To me it would be acceptable is say people acted negligently for example those ice fisherman who made a rope bridge from the shore over the unfrozen water to a big peice of ice to get to more fish. To me I would be fine with the charge of the rescue going to all 100+ fisherman they had to rescue that day.

Except that if you're familiar with ice conditions on the Great Lakes, pressure cracks are common and it is normal practice to cross them. It's not as foolhardy as the media and local sheriff pretend.

The NH law was originally that you could be charged if you acted "recklessly," and you would get your day in court. I don't think anyone has a problem with that idea. But then they downgraded it to "negligent," in the judgment of a bureaucrat, with no day in court and no appeal. Negligence is a much lower standard than recklessness. You can't get lost or have an accident without negligence.

I agree you should have your day in court, but do you have any information that says they have actually use this law, or it's just a deterrent to keep people from acting dumb?

Also I disagree that it should be a common practice to make rope bridges to cross open lake to get to another big piece of ice. To me that sounds very foolhardy, especially considering the weather conditions which the people out there should have been aware of. Still they should get there day in court, but if I was the juror I think I might make them pay for at least part of the rescue because if they want to take the reward (more fish) with a risk (crossing open water) if they don't face any penalty what is to stop them from doing it again and again? It's either the following:

1) The government stops taking my money and other peoples money for these rescues, and makes it so people can sign up for them if they want to take these risks. Or make the rescue parts ONLY volunteer so it costs the government nothing and thus the tax payer nothing.

2) The government starts charging the people who take needless risks (which I consider crossing a rope bridge to ice in open water to be) so that people like me who don't take those risks aren't charged for them

3) The government stops rescuing these people

4) These people get some type of rescue insurance so that way the insurance company they signed up with deal with the cost, and if they continue to get themselves in situations where they need to be rescued the insurance company will drop them and they will be on there own.

But yes regardless there should be a court hearing with a jury to determine if they were in fact in the wrong and took "needless risks" because to me the needless is part of it. For example if your stuck in the wilderness and the only way to cross a span of river is with a rope bridge and you get stuck that is different then crossing open water with a rope bridge to a span of ice in the middle of a lake to get some fish they most likely don't really "need".

Of course I am the type of person if I was out in the wilderness I would have to be very close to dieing before I would call the government to come help me. To me I want to be left alone and if I got myself in a situation I should get myself out or have someone voluntarily help me, not forcefully take money from someone else to pay for my rescue.

	ColdSoul wrote:
	I agree you should have your day in court, but do you have any information that says they have actually use this law, or it's just a deterrent to keep people from acting dumb?

Doesn't matter how it actually has been used to date. The problem with the law is always how it could be used.

	ColdSoul wrote:
	Also I disagree that it should be a common practice to make rope bridges to cross open lake to get to another big piece of ice. To me that sounds very foolhardy

There was no rope bridge across open water. There was a crack perhaps 1 foot wide, over which a pallet was put to form a bridge. This is a common practice, whether or not you think it should be. The ice cracks all the time.

The fact that so many people were out there should tell you something. The standard for negligence or recklessness refers to what a "reasonable person" would do. If over 100 people are involved, it's hard to meet that standard.

	ColdSoul wrote:
	But yes regardless there should be a court hearing with a jury to determine if they were in fact in the wrong and took "needless risks" because to me the needless is part of it. For example if your stuck in the wilderness and the only way to cross a span of river is with a rope bridge and you get stuck that is different ....

Why were you in the wilderness when we have perfectly good cities? Sounds needless to me.

This whole thing about the taxpayer having to pay for negligent people is a sham. How much do you think it cost you, personally, last year?

That entire Lake Erie ice fishing fiasco cost each Ohio taxpayer just a few pennies.

Andrew_S is this your belief ? qoute: Why were you in the wilderness when we have perfectly good cities? Sounds needless to me.

Your saying its needless to be in the Wilderness ??

_________________
A Knifeless Man is a Lifeless Man
Canadian To The Core
Carry Less by Knowing More
Knowledge Weighs Nothing

	Andrew_S wrote:
	Doesn't matter how it actually has been used to date. The problem with the law is always how it could be used.

I agree, it shouldn't be used unless there is a trial by there peers, so that should be changed. But I think the best thing would be to have the government stop offering the service, and let the free/private market take over.

Andrew_S wrote:

There was no rope bridge across open water. There was a crack perhaps 1 foot wide, over which a pallet was put to form a bridge. This is a common practice, whether or not you think it should be. The ice cracks all the time.

The fact that so many people were out there should tell you something. The standard for negligence or recklessness refers to what a "reasonable person" would do. If over 100 people are involved, it's hard to meet that standard.

It tells me there is a bunch of people who were not thinking, it doesn't mean it should have been done. As I said there is also the weather conditions to think about, and that is was "needless" they didn't "need" to go across that water to continue there lives, they were going to fish which they could have done without crossing that, or get a boat or something. And if they want to make a bridge across open water or a "crack" as you say they should be responsible for themselves not having the tax payer be responsible.

Are you saying if I get 100 people to strip down to there undies and go into the forest to live for a month thats not reckless? Sadly most people can't think for themselves so when they see someone else doing something they think "well it must be ok" or for a good example I was stuck in miles of traffic that was just sitting on the road in a storm, I continued on ahead and guess what the road was clear, so because 100 cars were sitting on the road in front of me due I have to presume that the road is blocked? No, I check and think for myself. And this actually happened to me.

	Andrew_S wrote:
	Why were you in the wilderness when we have perfectly good cities? Sounds needless to me. This whole thing about the taxpayer having to pay for negligent people is a sham. How much do you think it cost you, personally, last year? That entire Lake Erie ice fishing fiasco cost each Ohio taxpayer just a few pennies.

It doesn't matter how much it cost, the whole taking money for the tax payer is a complete scam regardless of what it is for. I am against forced taxation it should be controlled by the free market.

If it was controlled by the free market, or at least if controlled by the government it should be based upon voluntary pay per use, or something similar.

It's the same thing as schools, why should I have to pay for someone elses schooling? Why should I have to pay for someone elses health care? Etc, etc.

I am against it period, but to me them taking needless chances just makes it worse.

And please address my issue that if this was something they bought insurance for then if they continued to do something which the insurance company would decide was stupid or not there rates would either go up, or they would be dropped and then they could make as many dumb choices as they wished. But since it's controlled by the government then they have zero responsibility which is ridiculous in any circumstance.

	Drummer Dave wrote:
	Andrew_S is this your belief ? qoute: Why were you in the wilderness when we have perfectly good cities? Sounds needless to me. Your saying its needless to be in the Wilderness ??

I assumed he was playing Devil's Advocate...........

We are increasingly going towards a user pay society instead of one where our taxes are used to provide services. Our taxes used to pay for tap water, garbage pick up, ambulance rides, expressways, and more. (I'm speaking of my area, but it's likely the same elsewhere.) But no more. I have heard talk for years, in various areas, of charging people for being rescued in the wilderness. I'm betting the average person who goes into the wilderness cannot easily afford to be rescued. Putting a helicopter in the air, for one thing, is expensive. Making users pay for wilderness rescues seems unneccessarily punitive to me. And as for charging only those who get into a predicament because they did something foolish, who decides what is foolish and what is unavoidable misfortune? In some cases, it would be pretty clear, but there would likely be a big grey area, too. I say let our taxes - or volunteer organizations - continue to provide rescue services. And if the people rescued got into the situation because of their own ignorance, then charge them with something appropriate like public mischief and give them their day in court.

_________________

"The monkeys are throwing stuff at me again."
-Survivorman in Costa Rica

^ 10 - 4 im hoping that was the angle Cool

_________________
A Knifeless Man is a Lifeless Man
Canadian To The Core
Carry Less by Knowing More
Knowledge Weighs Nothing

	BushRat wrote:
	I assumed he was playing Devil's Advocate...........

Bingo.

Re insurance, well, if you want to pay an insurance company instead of paying taxes, go right ahead. Because that's what it comes down to.

It'll cost you more, guaranteed.

Andrew_S wrote:

	BushRat wrote:
	I assumed he was playing Devil's Advocate...........

Bingo.

Re insurance, well, if you want to pay an insurance company instead of paying taxes, go right ahead. Because that's what it comes down to.

It'll cost you more, guaranteed.

You totally missed the point, what I mean is stop taking ALL peoples taxes, and then if people want to be rescued they can use there insurance. That way they are paying for a service and if they want to use it they will be responsible (through higher rates, or being dropped). And people who don't want to take needless risks can get the insurance and it will stay cheap do to them using there brain.

It's a simple rule that when someone is given something for free and they don't see the cost of it they are more likely to put themselves in a situation that would require that service.

	ColdSoul wrote:
	It's a simple rule that when someone is given something for free and they don't see the cost of it they are more likely to put themselves in a situation that would require that service.

So knowing that rescue will be free makes me more likely to bury the bit of my axe in my leg?

Beware of simple rules.

Andrew_S wrote:

	ColdSoul wrote:
	It's a simple rule that when someone is given something for free and they don't see the cost of it they are more likely to put themselves in a situation that would require that service.

So knowing that rescue will be free makes me more likely to bury the bit of my axe in my leg?

Beware of simple rules.

No because that isn't the same because nobody will for the most part put themselves in pain or cause injury to themselves on purpose. But lets say everyone had free medical care, then you are more likely to say go to the doctor when you only have a cold, or other such things.

I don't know if you have read any about Austrian Economics, but that is what I am referring to. Austrian Economics dictates that any service provided by the government will not be as good as the same service provided by the free market for multiple reasons. AE also dictates that the service will be over used and abused because it's "free".

I am not just making this stuff up, the United States was originally very much a country based upon Austrian Economics, but now a days we are slipping into a socialist/communist government.

Think of this as a example...

If someone is paying say 100 dollars for insurance on there car, they get in a accident because they are driving to fast and there insurance rates go up to say 150 dollars and they are informed there rates will go up if in the next year they get any speeding tickets or accidents. Do you think they won't slow down a bit, and pay more attention? Of course they will because it benefits them to do so. They don't want there rates to go up of course.

With the government if I go out and need to be rescued because of my own recklessness and I get rescued there is no effect to that cause, I can go out and do the very same the next day and the government will rescue me again. And again and again. The government is trying to put a effect in by saying they can charge people who put themselves at risk for no reason, but I don't agree with that because thats not a service the government should be providing.

Without a Cause to the Effect people will never change, just as if there is no benefit to them they will never change.

I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.

	ColdSoul wrote:
	If someone is paying say 100 dollars for insurance on there car, they get in a accident because they are driving to fast and there insurance rates go up to say 150 dollars and they are informed there rates will go up if in the next year they get any speeding tickets or accidents. Do you think they won't slow down a bit, and pay more attention?

Actually, there's ample real-world evidence that they won't. Human behaviour is much less rational than you would think.

The fact that we pay for car insurance, and that our rates rise when we make claims or get tickets, does not cause people to curtail their risk-taking when driving. In fact, driving down the old highway is much, much riskier than going hiking in the late winter season or crossing a large pressure crack to get out on Lake Erie, precisely because the risk of higher insurance rates (and, indeed, of death and dismemberment) does not deter people from speeding, making unsignalled lane changes, following too close, or street racing.

Here in Ontario, if you go 50 km over the limit, you get a fine of up to $10,000, immediate license suspension, and immediate seizure of your vehicle. That's a cost of tens of thousands of dollars. This does not deter people; on any given holiday weekend, OPP will charge 200 - 300 people under this law.

They do this because they think they won't get caught -- like people who go outdoors thinking it won't happen to them. There's no point in hitting people with the SAR bill as a deterrent if they're convinced they won't get lost in the first place.

That's the problem with simple ideas. They make fine models, but don't work out in the real world.

Andrew_S wrote:

	ColdSoul wrote:
	If someone is paying say 100 dollars for insurance on there car, they get in a accident because they are driving to fast and there insurance rates go up to say 150 dollars and they are informed there rates will go up if in the next year they get any speeding tickets or accidents. Do you think they won't slow down a bit, and pay more attention?

Actually, there's ample real-world evidence that they won't. Human behaviour is much less rational than you would think.

The fact that we pay for car insurance, and that our rates rise when we make claims or get tickets, does not cause people to curtail their risk-taking when driving. In fact, driving down the old highway is much, much riskier than going hiking in the late winter season or crossing a large pressure crack to get out on Lake Erie, precisely because the risk of higher insurance rates (and, indeed, of death and dismemberment) does not deter people from speeding, making unsignalled lane changes, following too close, or street racing.

Here in Ontario, if you go 50 km over the limit, you get a fine of up to $10,000, immediate license suspension, and immediate seizure of your vehicle. That's a cost of tens of thousands of dollars. This does not deter people; on any given holiday weekend, OPP will charge 200 - 300 people under this law.

They do this because they think they won't get caught -- like people who go outdoors thinking it won't happen to them. There's no point in hitting people with the SAR bill as a deterrent if they're convinced they won't get lost in the first place.

That's the problem with simple ideas. They make fine models, but don't work out in the real world.

Of course some people will always violate any law, or there own self interest. But there is no way to statistically analysis the amount of people who don't go over 50KM over the speed limit because of the fine.

Trust me I understand the whole "I won't get caught thing" I have been trained regarding peoples thoughts and the law due to previously working in law enforcement type field.

For example with Murder there is no way to deter it with say the death penalty because most murders are one of the following:

1) Crime of Passion (someone walks in on a cheating spouse or something)

2) They think there "too smart" and have done everything to hide it

3) They are unstable and don't care

But like I said, if it wasn't the government doing the rescuing even if they did decide to continue to do reckless things it would be the person doing the reckless things getting charged. Which is a lot more fair then charging the tax payer.

Since the government does the rescuing the person who needed to be rescued will never have a incentive to change there behavior, where in what I am describing there will be a incentive and if they fail to follow it that is there choice and they hurt nobody else but themselves.

In what your wishing to happen everyone will be hurt by the forcefully taking of there money.