Hong Kong Hiking Web:
相關興趣 Related Interest:
| By 心 on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 8:55 pm: Edit
原來我們行山時遇到危險時, 最危險的竟然不是我們, 而是冒險盡責去拯救我們的機師!!!
| By 老人家 on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 10:12 pm: Edit
| By lc on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 12:05 am: Edit
(1) If not under top emergency, should not call / may not despatch helicopter. In the above case, police, fireman and AMS can lead them out.
(2) If not under top emergency, should charge them.
| By wawa on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 9:58 pm: Edit
| By 心 on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 7:04 pm: Edit
| By 閒人 on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 7:54 pm: Edit
逞強好勝, 見人爬自己又爬, 沒有好好評估自己的能力, 是悲劇的源頭, 累己累人!!
| By fatso on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 9:00 pm: Edit
I suggest those who called for helicopter (or even ambulance) services should be made to pay for their trips at cost if it was later confirmed by medical doctors that they did not require such services medically, or that they refused to go to hospital after getting the free ride.
| By 老人家 on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit
The diagnosis by a doctor is one thing, what people believe (or claim to believe) about their bodily conditions is quite another. An example: a man hiking in the hills BELIEVES that he is suffering from heat exhaustion. He also BELIEVES that he is going to die if he does not receive immediate medical attention. So he dials 999. On the phone, he tells the 999 operator what he BELIEVES. Sure enough, a helicopter is despatched to the scene and take him to a hospital. Then he is diagnosed as mildly dehydrated. He was not suffering from heat exhaustion. He was not about to die. Can we say he told a lie, and charge him for the cost of the chopper? He probably genuinely believed that he WAS going to die. Of course, we may call him....hmmmmm..an idiot, but he really wasn't a liar.
Your idea wouldn't go far, I am afraid.
| By BBC on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 2:37 am: Edit
當然老人家說的是大道理, 亦是現行的規律. 但當一個政府或一項政策太過寬鬆時, 給一些不良分子濫用甚至利用. 應該予以起訴, 如果真的清白, 法律不會怨王好人.
| By fatso on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 3:28 pm: Edit
What you said has some merits in it. But it would be a pity if we just quit there and label something "won't go far" without even trying to make it work in the first place.
Abuses should be prevented. Even assuming public resources were unlimited and money of the taxpayers were not a concern, one have to put the risk of others in perspective. It is just not good math to subject the lives of rescuers to undue risk if the guy who made the call were in no real danger himself, regardless of what perceived risk the latter had cooked up in his head.
I think the yardstick here is not what one thinks one needs, but what one "reasonable" man should be doing in the circumstances (there were many times in my trailwalker training before that I felt so tired and didn't belive I could move another inch. And I had such an urge to get a free air lift. But thank God I never took that easy way out).
We can modify the scheme as follows, and make the following people pay for the expensive air and land taxi (i.e. heli and ambulance):
- repeated offenders, or
- those who were later certified to be in no medical energencies, AND those in the view of the rescuers (police, CAS etc) was in no real and immediate danger whatsoever
Mind you. Even if the implementation of the scheme may turn out to be very lax, the idea of one may have to foot the bill oneself is deterent enough to make many potential abusers think twice before calling for the air/land taxi.
Come on. Don't tell me you quit so easily.
| By 老人家 on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:30 pm: Edit
Don't get me wrong. I fully support your idea. What I was trying to say is: human nature being what it is, I don't think your idea would be adopted by the authorities.
The British common law system here is an analogy - a man is considered innocent until he is proved guilty. Imagine how difficult it would be to prove that someone deliberately and without reasonable excuse tried to get a free ride in a chopper. That 'someone' could always claim that he REASONABLY BELIEVED that his life was in danger. At most he may be accused of poor judgment. Poor judgment is, however, not a crime.
Talking of 'quitting', you should know well enough who quits. Not you, or me.
| By fatso on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 11:22 pm: Edit
Thanks for your response. This way, I learn more by learning how others see things differently.
I could be wrong here....but I think the issue is not guilty or not guilty, but the "user pays" principle could be more appropriate.
We should not expect free lunch, nor allow our system to be so abused. Emergency vechiles/equipment/personnel should not be diverted to non-emergency uses since this could deprive someone who is in real need.
| By XXX on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 2:12 pm: Edit
| By 老人家 on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 6:23 pm: Edit
| By xxx on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 9:19 pm: Edit
| By fatso on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 1:03 am: Edit
I read your long article, and sympathise with the frustration you felt. If the problem you mentioned is systemic in nature, just keep trying to make your voice heard, and don't quit.
But whatever the outcome, don't be discouraged. Civil servant bashing is very fasionable during economic bad times. And the press people are not always right or fair. But it is you own self that matters more. You know your own value to the society. You know what good deeds you have done. At the end of the say, you will have a lot to show for, and to be proud of, before your maker.
Keep up the good work. We all need you guys.
| By lc on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 1:27 pm: Edit
An emergency call for
(1) Losing his way and
(2) Medical illness or injury
can be treated in different ways
First of all, very agree with 老人家 that we don't know how serious is the sickness or injury, in that case we may not challenging the victim providing he has the appearence of sickness. A doctor can also be despatch together with the helicopter to identify the necessity. If not, they can pass the case to the surface rescue team until their arrival.
For those lose their way in the country side, despatah the helicopter to located the scene. drop the rescuer down to examine the hiker's condition. If condition in not bad, waiting the rescue from surface then guide them to back to the motorway, pier. Even the helicopter was despatch, don't use it.
| By fatso on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 2:32 pm: Edit
Thanks for your view. I never thought I disagree with 老人家 on what to do when receiving a call for help. But what I am concerned is what to do AFTER the rescue/ or after free transport is provided.
Make the abusers/repeat offenders pay will ensure they don't abuse the system next time round. All these are done AFTER the rescue.
If the conditions permit (i.e. not putting the rescuers to even greater risk), nobody needs to make a decision to rescue or not rescue. When life and limb are at stake, we don't do the bean counting first. But the whole issue is AFTER the rescue, what to do next.