Originally Posted By: Brangdon
Originally Posted By: 2005RedTJ
I think a balance needs to be found where people are charged only if they are in need of rescue due to their own negligence.
Why?

Is this about raising funds (in which case, why pick on just the negligent)? Or about deterrence (in which case, surely the negligent are the ones least likely to be deterred by the cost of rescue, given that they weren't deterred by the chance of dying if the rescue didn't arrive in time - these people aren't really planning ahead)? Or is this mostly because the rescuers want revenge, or at least satisfaction, from seeing negligent people punished for stupidity?


Because it goes to the educational aspect of it. I truly think a lot of people who find themselves in need of rescue had no idea what they were getting into. People nowadays are stupid. If they go unprepared and get charged for their own rescue, at least there's a CHANCE they will either not do it again, or be more prepared next time.

And no, it's not about raising funds per se, as much as it's about offsetting the cost that should not be borne by the general tax-paying public for one person's stupidity or unpreparedness.