Interesting, people will complain about a nanny state but then voluntarily agree to give up the means to summon help for themselves if they run into trouble, who's the nanny there?
I participate in long distance motorcycle rallies involving thousands of miles of riding and the equivalent of geo caching or scavenger hunting, the idea that the organisers of any of the rallies would ban the use of cell phones in an emergency is simply lunacy. "sorry pal, you knew it was dangerous when you signed up, find some other way to get help..."
If the folks who were stupid enough to agree to such a thing mean what they say, they should refuse outside help of any kind, no rescue helos, no well meaning passers by. Finish or die. Anything else is simply hypocrisy.
Doesn't matter what the cell tower coverage is, that's a red herring tossed in by the organisers in a lame excuse to explain some stupid decisions. Banning the means for someone to summon help if needed and then appealing to that person's sense of nobility in being self reliant is really pathetic. I'm not sure who's worse, the self deluded folks who agreed to participate or the self-rightous morons who made the rule.
Simple question, how many people on this forum would knowingly and purposefully, NOT include the means to communicate in their survival kits/plans because they're worried about society turning into a "nanny state"?
"and all the lousy little poets
tryin' to sound like Charlie Manson"
The Future/Leonard Cohen