Hacker News Reader

Comment by nraynaud | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting because I live in a country where being rescued is free as a rule[1]. And I find it nice: I know that if shit happens in the mountains, the helicopter will come, no need to be rich to hike or sail. And I'm happy to be paying other people's rescue when they are in need. A couple friend of mine had to call a rescue team when their rope got tangled when repealing down a cliff, no need to feel bad.

[1]doesn't apply to ski resorts

View on HN

I like this response.

I'd also point out -- taxpayers spend millions on training exercises for these same crews so that the teams will know how to rescue people who need rescuing from more "acceptable according to grandparent" perils. Seems like rescuing a few crazy people attempting insane stunts could justifiably be rolled over into the training budget for these teams ...

Lol, I know when I hiked into Canada, they were very clear that you should have your credit card in hand and ready to pay the $2k charge if they had to use a helicopter to get you out of there. Apparently they've had more than a few people ready to pay the parks service for said service when getting to the top of the pass!

Everything else was included in the minimal day use fee, saw one guy take an abridged version of the hike (due to injury), whereby they covered the finger lakes on boat, and hiked by the short rapids in the slot valleys.

On another note, Parker's Trail is horrible, and when they actually hike the Chilkoot trail they successfully picked the absolute shittiest of conditions (not quite snow, but a slushy, slippery mess). In the summer, it isn't terrible to boulder up, and I found it to be quite an enjoyable trip, got really lucky with some great views & conditions.

Which country is that? Does this rule apply to tourists as well?

France, and yes.

France, like much of Europe, is well covered by towns and cities. So there is often not a great distance for emergency services to cover which means the cost of mounting a rescue will not be excessive.

As a counter point, Australia is sparsely populated. Apart from the coastal cities it is often hundreds of kilometers between towns or road houses. So the cost of mounting a land rescue can get into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Also there is a lot of ocean area for which Australia is the closest landmass. There have been numerous ocean rescues mounted from Australia for sailors competing in round the world races or record attempts, some of them soloists:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/11/world/australia-rescues-sa...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/family-cannot-afford-to-p...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-19/south-african-men-resc...

http://www.news.com.au/national/sailors-snapped-leg-forces-1...

These rescues have cost hundreds to millions of dollars each and generally have been paid for by Australian tax payers as noted in some of the articles.

So yes it is nice that you will be rescued. But these people all put themselves in a dangerous position for their own entertainment/ego and needed rescue at great expense to others. The millions that were spent for some of the rescues needed to be diverted from services/programs that would have benefited the taxpayers.

The geographic and population distribution differences between countries means that some countries will end up with a larger bill than others for mounting such rescues.

For this guy trying to prove something by sailing the smallest boat, if he can't take out "rescue" insurance, he should not go. Alternatively, he could also arrange for a support vessel to follow close by in case he needs assistance.

we're talking north Atlantic here, not southern oceans, there will be a lot of people around.

it's not free, it's just free of payment by person in need, but someone has to pay the bill, seem pretty selfish

Yes, It's a public insurance paid for by taxes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com