Another one who didn't listen
- Thread starter Toddy
- Start date
Elen Sentier
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I love risk, it's good. But why is it wrong for the people who rescue to voice their frustrations and concerns? Why is it Ok for clunches like this to "expect" to be rescued? Expecting to be rescued is not "risk" it's childish stupidity. Such folk need educating about their own responsibilities not moaning about the people who save their wretched lives.
[FONT="]Risk is about knowing something at least of what you're doing, taking on, else how is it a risk if you think you can do it? In the latter case it's just a walk in the park ... to your mind ... and you have no idea of what you're actually doing, or what you may have to ask others to do for you. When you realise all that then the risk become very real, and far more exciting and enjoyable. It's not a "phew! I survived but I've no idea how!" but a "good, that was fun, scary, but I managed and I learned things". Even if you slip and break your leg you can learn how to make the best of your situation before you go and possibly have an accident. Being rescued is not a "right", we really do have to drop this "my rights" stuff along with "I'm just a nice person so don't shout a me!" ... Grrrrrrrrr[/FONT]
[FONT="]Risk is about knowing something at least of what you're doing, taking on, else how is it a risk if you think you can do it? In the latter case it's just a walk in the park ... to your mind ... and you have no idea of what you're actually doing, or what you may have to ask others to do for you. When you realise all that then the risk become very real, and far more exciting and enjoyable. It's not a "phew! I survived but I've no idea how!" but a "good, that was fun, scary, but I managed and I learned things". Even if you slip and break your leg you can learn how to make the best of your situation before you go and possibly have an accident. Being rescued is not a "right", we really do have to drop this "my rights" stuff along with "I'm just a nice person so don't shout a me!" ... Grrrrrrrrr[/FONT]
It's not and never will be as long as its constructive. When talking to the papers the MRT has to use any opportunity to further the education of everyone on thinking about the risks of the mountain and making sure you are confident in dealing with those risks before you head out. They've done that here - where they think that someone has not thought about it and that has born out in the result. This guy might have been "lucky" and made it up and down with no problem. Equally someone who has done all the thinking planning might be "unlucky" and still need a call out.
The reason this has ended up in the papers (and on here) is it's a good example and therefore a good opportunity for the MRT to educate.
If however the MRT just needs to vent frustration then they can do that down the pub. Use the media for the constructive bit!
the annoying thing is if the chap had gone up and down with no specialist gear in the snow with no bother he'd have gone around telling people who were thinking about doing it that it's completely safe and not to bother spending money on kit, increasing the problem.
the difference between a well equipped walker and this idiot is that the well equipped walker isn't asking for an accident to happen, they have listened to advice or personal experience and taken measures to reduce the risk of an accident. doesn't mean they won't have one but they have made an effort.it would just be bad luck. my friends and I were descending the Old Man of Coniston in August 2005, all of us had walking boots and wet and cold weather gear, I had a survival bag, navigation equipment and first aid kit, and it was the nicest weather you could imagine in the Lakes. one of my friends stepped on a rock that rolled under his weight and he broke his leg, I was able to tell the Mountain Rescue team our location and he was carried off within an hour and a half. accidents do happen.
when you climb or walk in the high places of Britain I think you have a duty to keep yourself as safe as possible so that others don't have to put themselves in danger to come and help you. you might argue that they don't have to in the first place but if it were you lying in the snow with an injured leg, and in the pitch black, you can be damn sure you'd want someone to come and help.
the difference between a well equipped walker and this idiot is that the well equipped walker isn't asking for an accident to happen, they have listened to advice or personal experience and taken measures to reduce the risk of an accident. doesn't mean they won't have one but they have made an effort.it would just be bad luck. my friends and I were descending the Old Man of Coniston in August 2005, all of us had walking boots and wet and cold weather gear, I had a survival bag, navigation equipment and first aid kit, and it was the nicest weather you could imagine in the Lakes. one of my friends stepped on a rock that rolled under his weight and he broke his leg, I was able to tell the Mountain Rescue team our location and he was carried off within an hour and a half. accidents do happen.
when you climb or walk in the high places of Britain I think you have a duty to keep yourself as safe as possible so that others don't have to put themselves in danger to come and help you. you might argue that they don't have to in the first place but if it were you lying in the snow with an injured leg, and in the pitch black, you can be damn sure you'd want someone to come and help.
Don't think the MR team leader has done anything wrong. He was probably asked for his opinion by a journalist, and he gave it. I doubt anyone would suggest his opinion was wrong. And from his perspective any publicity about being suitably equipped is a good thing.
I do think repeat offenders should be banned from the mountains. I read somewhere this is done for egg poachers, they get banned from areas were certain birds breed.
I do think repeat offenders should be banned from the mountains. I read somewhere this is done for egg poachers, they get banned from areas were certain birds breed.
At what level of stupidity would you set the bar? The Scout Leader who advised a girl to risk crossing a stream in flood (she drowned) or someone who went for a stroll, went further and higher than they meant to? Stupid comment anyway, same as suggesting fines. Mountain Rescue choose not to turn out then.They are volunteers (I repeat, volunteers) so it's their choice.
Do not undertake to do something then complain because you are doing something. A rescue is presumably the same no matter the level of equipment carried by the patient. The only grounds for complaint is the marginal increase in calls on the services of the MRT if poor equipment is a factor. Perfect hillwalkers in perfect conditions who would be praised, presumably for their perfection, only ones on the hills, shame then that a selection of these people also seem to need rescuing. Shut the hills!
Last edited:
And truth be told, while YES, the volunteers do indeed care about the public, but that's NOT the reason they volunteer. They do it because they enjoy it.
If a Scout Leader had multiple fatalities on multiple trips... shouldn't someone at least look into why thats the case? Maybe the Scout Leader isn't upto the job. Ditto people getting lost multiple times either need to stop walking mountains or get educated on navigation.
Also I'm not suggesting that someone that wants to walk Ben Nevis in a lioncloth in winter (or say Oetzi's clothing) can't or is stupid for attempting to do so. Aslong has a few other geared up people with him with extra gear just incase he comes a cropper.
Last edited:
Why do I shudder when I see knee-jerk reactions to a situation, followed by a call for someone to do something, including laws/fines/banning/letting them die etc? Because I've seen it all before, time and time again. And the net result is yet further restrictions on what we - the general public - can and can't do. Legislation to protect "society" from actions based on the stupidity of a miniscule minority is not good government in my book.
Was he irresponsible? It would appear so, although I'd like a bit more info on his trainers etc - were they general purpose ones, or climbing ones? And one could argue that he was carrying an extremely effective safety device which worked well - a mobile phone! (and for those who claim you shouldn't rely on electronic gadgets, you may well have a point - lucky that torches don't run on electricity
) And it appears that when he did realise he was lost, he acted sensibly - ie call for help immediately, rather than try to tough it out, which he was ill-equipped to do. And it is of course only fair to point out that those with good quality walking boots, and torches, have died in those mountains nevertheless.
So, many obvious minus points to his preparations and planning, but a few plus points as well. A storm in a teacup, in my view.
Was he irresponsible? It would appear so, although I'd like a bit more info on his trainers etc - were they general purpose ones, or climbing ones? And one could argue that he was carrying an extremely effective safety device which worked well - a mobile phone! (and for those who claim you shouldn't rely on electronic gadgets, you may well have a point - lucky that torches don't run on electricity
) And it appears that when he did realise he was lost, he acted sensibly - ie call for help immediately, rather than try to tough it out, which he was ill-equipped to do. And it is of course only fair to point out that those with good quality walking boots, and torches, have died in those mountains nevertheless.So, many obvious minus points to his preparations and planning, but a few plus points as well. A storm in a teacup, in my view.
Can I ask when is it ok to refer to Darwinism and when not? Does the idiot have to survive, as in this case, for it to be ok to post in that vein? Is it ok when there have been warnings or can it be used when common-sense is ignored?
Alan
Alan
Darwinism implies that they are removed from the gene pool. Therefore it would be neccessary for them to NOT survive.
Sorry but your a bit wrong.
Guy's walking alone, slips and breaks a bone;
Proper equipment and preparation - has a map and training so he knows where he is. He also has a fully charged phone. He calls 999 and gives his grid coordinates and condition. It's cold and raining so he pulls out his waterproofs, finds a sheltered location and has a hot drink while waiting the hour or so as the MRT walk straight to him or Rescue 169 or another heli flies in to pick him up. As they approach he blows on his whistle to make it easier for the rescue party to find his exact location. Within two hours he's in hospital and the MRT members are headed back to their families.
Inadequate equipment and preparation - hasn't a clue where he is and barely any charge on his phone. Calls 999 and gives a poor description of where he thinks he may but is cut off when his battery dies. It's cold and raining so he sits there shivering while his core temperature drops and hypothermia sets in. The MRT is callout out and RVs with the Police POLSA to plan the search. Multiple parties are dispatched. Some along the route the search manager thinks the walker has taken, while other parties are given large areas to line search. Given the size of the search area SARDA dogs are also deployed. Rescue 169 is also on scene and trying to use their thermal camera to spot a heat source. By now it's late evening, it's dark and the rain has turned to sleet. In the distance the walker can see the running lights of the heli but he can't signal as he doesn't have a torch. The parties search through the night and just as dawn breaks they come aross the walker. By now he is so cold that he has severe hypothermia. His condition is delicate and he is carefully loaded in to a stretcher and given treatment to stop the heat loss. Sadly is condition is so bad that he suffers a cardiac arrest while being transported and is pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The MRT members then return to their families where they try to explain how they feel. For some it's the sense of failure. While for others they have seen it all before and talk about how proper equipment and training could have saved the guys life.
I fully support what the TL has said. This man put his own safety at risk, which is fine. However, when as a result he puts others at risk he has crossed a line.
It's not the ONLY reason.
Yep, the training is fun and the social side can be very entertaining. But that's not enough when the pager goes off at silly o'clock in the morning when it's raining and cold. For example, last Thursday I was working from home. Started at 10am and I was still working at 2:30am the next morning when the pager went off. Instead of heading to bed as I'd intended I jumped in the car and spent the next few hours looking for an elderly gent with dementia who had just lost his wife and wandered from home. I got home at 730am, spent an hour finishing off my work before hitting the sack.
It can be all the fun in the world but without the commitment and desire to help others we wouldn't do this.
Last edited:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you get cell phone reception, you really aren't in the woods far enough. Or in the mountains yet.
LOl. I know the training's fun. Up to a point anyway; after that the training and certs can suck the fun out of it.
But when I said it's fun, I was actually referring to said pager going off at O-Dark thirty and dashing out into the elements. that's what the real fun is. I just love hurricanes!
Last edited:
But as you are posting on Bushcraft UK, bear in mind that there are very few parts of our country where you cannot get cellphone coverage, we're a small place, but still a deadly one for those who are unprepared or even just unlucky.
Don't you have coverage in the woods? That contravenes the human rights laws of many countries! Even Afghanistan has good coverage in most areas.
I agree you're a much smaller country and have cell phone coverage pretty much everywhere. that's rather my point. Therefore most people (apparently including the individual who was rescued) don't really consider it particularlly dangerous.
I might have added that not only is cell ohone coverage absent when in deep wilderness, but also the proximatey to organized rescue teams is questionable at best.
In other words, he had a cell phone and he had access to a resue team. that in and of itself is preperation in many people's eyes.
