 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2008Because it's considered a 'privilege'
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers <...> Motorists with a bad sense of direction could lose their license in New Hampshire even if they leave their car at home. A bill making its way through the state legislature would suspend the driver's license of anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees imposed for a rescue operation. <...> Motorists already fund the rescue of hikers with a $1 tax imposed on recreational vehicles. <...> >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >anyone who gets lost while hiking and is unable to pay the large fees >imposed for a rescue operation. It gets better. They'll also suspend the professional license of anyone involved, unless they pay the arbitrary fee. So "negligently" get lost while hiking, and lose your ability to get around AND your ability to work. You'll still be allowed to take a hike, though. Of course, you know that the first person to lose their licenses under this section will be some poor slob who wasn't lost at all, but was found because some relative, friend, or co-worker panicked. They'll argue they didn't need the rescue and won't pay for it, and the judge will rule that they were "negligent" for not informing the relative, friend, or co-worker not to call for rescue, and that will be the end of that.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Feb 25, 5:49 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > Of course, you know that the first person to lose their licenses under > this section will be some poor slob who wasn't lost at all, but was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > friend, or co-worker not to call for rescue, and that will be the end > of that. As someone who lives in NH and enjoys hiking and riding in the mountains year round, I can see this happening. Why should I pay tens of thousands of dollars for a rescue I didn't need or want because someone else thought I might be in trouble? On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 5:49 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of thousands of dollars for a rescue I didn't need or want because > someone else thought I might be in trouble? YOU wouldn't: "This bill allows the fish and game department to recover the cost of search and rescue responses from persons who **negligently** require search and rescue services." As I interpret it, if you fall and break your leg on a hike, you get rescued for free. If you wander into the wilderness like an idiot and get lost, or fall free-climbing (and manage to not be killed), or ski out-of-bounds and get buried by an avalanche, etc, you pay, or else. Seems fair to me. ----- - gpsman Check the rental rates on a helicopter with a pilot sometime. >On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 25, 5:49 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >As I interpret it, if you fall and break your leg on a hike, you get >rescued for free. Unles the fish and game department considers your fall to be negligent. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ><...> It's another way to discourage stupid people from driving. -- People don't confuse me with someone who cares. > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Motorists already fund the rescue of hikers with a $1 tax imposed on > recreational vehicles. I don't get it. Why should they lose their license? And BTW, i hate these idiots who get lost in the woods and expect the state to rescue them but OTOH you can be sure the state is padding the rescue fees. SFB spewed: >> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >I don't get it. Why should they lose their license? Why not? If they are stupid enough to go out into the woods with out the requisite survival/navagational skills to return home safely, then they are probablly stupid enough to drive beaters with bald and/or sandpaper threaded tires, inoperable dash lights, no emergency brake and painted with spray cans at inappropriate speeds through residential areas and kill people about every 4 1/2 years or so. People like that should not be allowed on the roads. > And BTW, i hate these >idiots who get lost in the woods and expect the state to rescue them but >OTOH you can be sure the state is padding the rescue fees. So the state is padding the fees. Big f.cking Deal. They provided these hikers a service - that being saving them from themselves - and the state billed the fools for it. Translation: no cost to the taxpayers.Or do yo think the state should be providing this for free??? I don't see what you are pissing and moaning about.... ....unless you are one of those idiots who routinely gets lost in the woods. Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp > > New Hampshire May Suspend Driving License of Lost Hikers > > <...> Typical bright idea from the government. Make the punishment have absolutely NOTHING to do with the "crime". How about --- if you don't pay the fine for your dumb a.s getting lost in the White Mountains, you're arrested and you go to jail? I live in NH and fully agree with having the rescued party having to pay the state for their rescue - within reason. It's one thing climbing up Mount Washington in the winter with just a sweatshirt and another going up there fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. I guess it comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn. John B. >> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >fully prepared, but losing your way in blizzard conditions. I guess it >comes down to where the pay/no-pay line is drawn. I remember some years ago some hikers got caught in a blizzard out west (maybe Colorado). A search-and-rescue effort was mounted, but not successful. The hikers walked out a few days later -- and the govt tried to charge them for the failed (and obviously unnecessary) rescue attempt. I don't know how that came out. BTW, for gpstroll: Here's a guy who fell and twisted his ankle, and got charged for the rescue: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6171214 SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Feb 26, 11:07 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <1204057010.373...@nfs-db1.segnet.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This is exactly my concern. Also, the "rescuers" may try to mandate the recovery once they find you. If I take my own a.s into the woods, I intend to take it out. If I fail in this and require helicopters, search parties, etc. that's a different story (and one that Darwin could handle on his own). My concern lies in being charged for an unnecessary "rescue", The fact that the people in charge of the rescue are likely the biggest factors in determining negligence is also a concern. In the event of an unnecessary rescue mission being launched it provides a situation where a kettle needs an a.s, and I don't think many will be willing to provide their own. > >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John B. Hard to define 'negligent'. We had a case here in the NW. Party climbed Mt Hood and got caugh in a blizzard, rescue went on for 3 days IIANM with full equipment including helicopters. Negligent? I consider it so as that storm was predicted before they departed. Harry K > > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I recently peaked a mountain with a friend while it was snowing, in the dark, after work on a worknight. and there was already a few feet of snow on the ground. There was nothing negligent about it, we planned to do exactly what we did in the exact conditions we did it in. Had someone decided we needed "rescue" and come after us I am not willing to accept the expenses of the unnecessary search. On Feb 27, 1:39 pm, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > planned to do exactly what we did in the exact conditions we did it > in. Lol. A "hike" up a "hill" "after work" is not "peaking" a "mountain". > Had someone decided we needed "rescue" and come after us I am not > willing to accept the expenses of the unnecessary search. No worries. No rescue would begin until daylight if you haven't been gone more than 24 hours. And nobody is likely to send a search party looking for you because you're late home from work by an hour either. ----- - gpsman > On Feb 27, 1:39 pm, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Pleased to hear you were watching. While there are many ways to peak a mountain, an 8 hour voyage in the snow does qualify. Not all people live the same life you do, so your projection of your own life may have mislead you. A 24 hour requirement to begin a rescue would be a good start. I didn't see that mentioned in the word of the law, nor have I seen a 24 hour wait period to be in effect in the rescues I've read of recently. Further, the hike discussed here is not the extent of what my friends and I do, just a recent and applicable example. Thanks for your comments all the same. On Feb 25, 1:27 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2240.asp > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > <...> In Colorado, they tacked 24 cents on to every hunting license as a funding source for S&R. Hunters don't usually get lost. Day hikers from Boulder fall from rocks. Rich guys from wherever get stranded on their snowmobiles and need help because they are too stupid to stick together. IIRC, non-hunters could buy a permit that would serve as a free pass to get rescued. Others had to pay. I just never like the idea of using the force only on hunters. It should have been voluntary for them as well. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.