I think the main arguement of charging is being directed to those who go out on the fells and moors ill equipped. I personally agree that the muppets should be charged for services rendered. The problem starts in interpretation, what constitutes ill prepared? To an experienced walker it would be a myriad of things, to a good litigation brief, it could be argued that "going out without a spare pair of socks is ill prepared according to these nasty experienced walker types" so their arguement is null and void m'lud.
Lets face it, if you drive a vehicle without breakdown insurance then you enter that lottery of "I hope I don't break down on the motorway" It can cost £300 to get towed to the next services and no one questions the rights and wrongs of Recovery insurance so why can't we have insurance for walkers? Because it would be another stealth tax that the government could impose on everyone. Where do you draw the line between walking on the fells and needing rescuing or a leisurely walk around a country park and needing rescuing.
In both situations you need the help of the emergency services. If you were on the fells - fully equipped and you break a leg then no charge under the new legislation (that doesn't exist YET) however, if you were walking around the country park on a roasting hot day whilst wearing shorts, t-shirt and trainers and you break a leg.... Well that will cost you the charge for the rescue service to turn out, the helicopter, the A&E team waiting at hospital, the orthopaedic team costs etc. I can see it now, OH so you didn't think that you needed insurance to go for a walk in the park? Well here is your £50000 bill, and yes we WILL take you house in payment.
Yes I agree with charging the muppets that go out on our fells and get into trouble but how do you determine who pays and who doesn't? I wouldn't like to make that decision
Cheers
John
