Cost of hiking in NH

[Old Hillwalker]

http://nhpr.org/post/michigan-hiker-charged-9300-franconia-ridge-rescue

A Michigan hiker has been charged about $1800 a mile after having an accident on Franconia Ridge trail in NH. The trail section he was on was 4.9 miles long.

[moldy]

I wonder how long it will be before the New Hampshire policy ends up killing somebody?

[Tom Murphy]

I wonder how long it will be before the New Hampshire policy ends up killing somebody?

Actually, it will be the person's decisions that kills him or her, no the NH policy.

[Tom Murphy]

I wonder how long it will be before the New Hampshire policy ends up killing somebody?

Actually, it will be the person's decisions that kills him or her, not the NH policy.

[moldy]

You fall and hit your head and in your diminished capacity you fail to call help out of fear of a huge bill. You instead try to crawl down the trail with further injury. The jury may see it differently.

[evyck da fleet]

I remember a thread about this when it happened. It seems to me, he was negligent. He not only put himself but the rescuers in danger. If next time he, or someone else, pulls a stunt like this and decides not to call to save some $, good for him for not endangering others with his stupid decision.

[George]

getting charged is one thing, paying it may be another

[ALLEGHENY]

Who pays for recovery of a body?

[MuddyWaters]

You can send someone a bill, but making them pay is much more difficult.
The state of NH would have to spend more than $9300, to force payment of $9300.
Hence, they likely collect nothing.
Out of state person, they cant even withold state taxes, etc (if NH has them)

[Don H]

Let's see:
Dislocated a hip
Hiking alone in a rugged area
Ignored a forecast of heavy rain and high winds

A thru-hiker doesn't have a chance! Better buy that Hiker card.....

[VT-Mike]

Hey, it's the live free or die state! You chose?

[Conure]

This $25 "safe pass" may be setting a bad precedent...you don't have the pass, you get hurt, you get rescued, you pay. Not purchasing the pass could be considered "negligent", doesn't sound good to me. You have the pass, you get hurt, you get rescued, they buy you a doughnut.

Fourteen states, $25 a piece, that's an extra $350 dollars to ensure you're not a "negligent hiker." Can almost guarantee the cost of rescue for those without the pass will be padded.

[Conure]

Make it a lifetime pass--pay once, get rescued forever--that sounds like a good deal!

[HikerMom58]

Ahhh.... talking about responsible behavior again. I'm glad he was recused and the rescuers weren't hurt.

[Pootz]

I see nothing wrong with charging for a rescue. You use/need a service you pay for that service. They probably saved his life, $9300 sounds pretty cheap.

[Tom Murphy]

I suspect that finding someone up on the ridge with "two canes" and location of the injury predisposed the Rangers to classifying this negligent behavior. When the weather and solo status are combined with the two canes, nature of the injury and the previous medical history I can understand the determination that he should not have been hiking alone in the rain. I disagree with that decision but it is a reasonable conclusion.

How did they know about his medical history? Makes you want to be tight lipped when the SAR does show up. A "thank you" and then shut-up.

[magneto]

No one ones anyone a rescue, so they injured hiker did not endanger anyone's life. The rescuers chose to take the risk to help, just the the injured hiker chose to take the risk to hike.

If getting paid is so important to the rescuers, then they should quote the hiker a price before providing services and get payment in advance.

I personally would (and have) volunteered to participate searches and rescues, without expectation of being paid, or even recovering my own personal costs. I consider my costs donations. I don't care if the person needing the rescue is stupid or not, was negligent or not or is in some other way deserving.

I volunteer to protect human life, which has intrinsic value apart from the circumstances of how it is endangered. I also hope people would have the same regard for my life, if I ever needed a rescue.

[magneto]

Sorry, that should read:

"No one owes anyone a rescue, so the injured hiker did not endanger anyone's life. The rescuers chose to take the risk to help, just the the injured hiker chose to take the risk to hike.

If getting paid is so important to the rescuers, then they should quote the hiker a price before providing services and get payment in advance.

I personally would (and have) volunteered to participate searches and rescues, without expectation of being paid, or even recovering my own personal costs. I consider my costs donations. I don't care if the person needing the rescue is stupid or not, was negligent or not, or is in some other way deserving.

I volunteer to protect human life, which has intrinsic value apart from the circumstances of how it is endangered. I also hope people would have the same regard for my life, if I ever needed a rescue. "

[TEXMAN]

I drive to NH on the interstate in a car with bald tires, a tire blows out and my car ends up smashing into a guardrail, the highway patrol stops an sees I am injured so an ambulance takes me to the ER, the police then call a tow truck to pull my car off the highway....who pays for the ambulance, the ER, the towtruck and getting my car fixed, the State or me?

[magneto]

If you couldn't pay, the state would. The same way that if you show up at a hospital and need treatment, we are not so cold-hearted that we ask you to pay before we treat to you. You will be sent a bill, and if you can't pay it, and the hospital can't collect it, it will be forgiven. You can always negotiate some sort of payment plan.

Not everything is about money. Are we going to end up with a society where everything has to be paid for? Is there no human kindness or compassion for someone who is hurt?

If it is so important to be paid, demand payment upfront, and let the person go untreated if they don't have insurance and they can't pay. Let them die; it is cheaper. They will be dead, but at least you will not have expended any resources on someone who could not pay.