Oh and not to mention the fact that it also takes already stretched rural Police resources away from their primary role for hours on end, for what could be a wild goose chase!
(You know what I mean - from manning the speed cameras!)
As I raised earlier I think systems like Spot could also reduce the number of false call outs - i.e. from anxious family members etc. when the person is not back by a certain time.
So although there is a risk of more false alarms there is also the potential for fewer as well so hopefully they would at least balance each other up.
When you factor in that it should mean (hopefully) a quicker response / rescue (by knowing exactly where the device is) and the opportunity for saving more lives I would have thought that the emergency services would consider them positively.
At the end of the day only time will tell - but lives have already been saved by Spot and other PLB type devices and that must count for something...
The jury may be out but imho, Barking Mad has made the more persuasive argument.
The arguments con so far have been of the type I have heard surrounding the discovery, development and use of cutting edge medical imaging modalities viz, the more illness you are able to uncover the more demand for treatment there'll be and that would engender a vastly increased burden on already stretched and finite resources so perhaps we shouldn't use them. That kind of argument doesn't work for me, to many negative what ifs.
But then, maybe you haven't had to attempt to explain to a coroner that a person died because there were no Ambulances available to send or that your resources were all attending "inappropriate" calls, unknown at the material time!
The point is that we prioritize calls using AMPDS on a medical needs basis, however, we cannot do that if we don't know what we are attending and have to err on the side of caution, which if it is an inappropriate call may cost someone else who needs a critical care Ambulance at that time their life. We cannot divert an Ambulance to a higher priority call if we do not know the priority of the call that we have already sent them on!
It is not BTW looking for excuses to ridicule this system, it is pointing out that there are REAL concerns within the Emergency organisations for the back door introduction of such "generalised" schemes , Services who are constantly pressured by Government targets to reach Emergency calls within set times, whilst NOT provided with the resources and funding to achieve this!
These things need to be properly researched and introduced with the consideration of the impact on the emergency services taken into full account!
Perhaps I am putting too much hope / trust in 'people' being responsible. However, I believe that the type of person who would buy this type of unit (pay the up front and recurring fees and register it with Spot) would be more 'responsible' so would not press the 'emergency' button without proper reason.
Overall I think there is actually more chance that Spot will 'save' more false alarm call outs and allow incidents to be rsolved more quickly (by having an accurate location) and therefore 'save' more emergency service resources than it may 'cause' by people having them - so not sure there would be any less ambulances available.
Not really for dicsussion in this thread but maybe when mountain rescue is called perhaps an ambulance should only be requested (by the MRT) once they have located the person and are on their way back - would save a lot of time and many times an ambulance probably was not needed anyway?
The reality is people will only use Spot when they are out of reach of mobile coverage - would just not make sense to put your trust in a Spot unit (or PLB) that can give you no feedback if you had a working mobile and could 'speak' to someone - but if you are out of mobile coverage it is certainly 1000x better that nothing.
Personally I would have no problem with people being charged for false call outs and having their Spot device deactivated as they would be abusing the system!
I said, "The arguments con so far have been of the type I have heard surrounding the discovery, development and use of cutting edge medical imaging modalities viz, the more illness you are able to uncover the more demand for treatment there'll be and that would engender a vastly increased burden on already stretched and finite resources so perhaps we shouldn't use them. That kind of argument doesn't work for me, too many negative what ifs."
You said, "These things need to be properly researched and introduced with the consideration of the impact on the emergency services taken into full account!", thus, the same argument as illustrated above.
What you are failing to take on board is that this system exists already and nobody, individual or governmental authority, has the right to proscribe them. What must be understood is that there will be an individual, who must be presumed to be in dire circumstances, on the initiating end of a distress call and they must be attended to. You are using under resourcing to inform your argument when it, separately, should surely be the object of your concerns as it is a general problem affecting many people in many circumstances. That is the problem and it is the problem that needs to be addressed irrespective of the advent of technology such as that under discussion.
I believe as does BM that a reduction in false alarms is just as likely as any negative scenario you have painted. On the face of it, there may be some value in the idea of paying an annual licence fee in this country with all proceeds going to emergency medical and rescue services but you know as well as I that even if the revenue raised were ring-fenced its value would be clawed back in some way. Another concern would be that rescue through such methods of alert would become dependent on the ability to pay and tends to rub the wrong way against my egalitarian instincts.
Not really for dicsussion in this thread but maybe when mountain rescue is called perhaps an ambulance should only be requested (by the MRT) once they have located the person and are on their way back - would save a lot of time and many times an ambulance probably was not needed anyway?
Maybe time and money would be better spent on educating the populace on the correct way to call Mountain Rescue a la the Coastguard Ads of the late 70's early 80's.
Its amazing howmany walkers/climbers/outdoor sports people dont know the basics of
> What you are failing to take on board is that this system exists already and nobody, individual or governmental authority, has the right to proscribe them
Not really in either the SPOT pro or con camp, but Government have the right to make anything illegal, should they decide it's not a great idea.
Radar warning receivers, all those sorts of things were introduced and made illegal retrospectively. The poacher is always one step ahead of the gamekeeper. This is entirely understandable, as you can't easily legislate against things that haven't yet been invented...
The current stem cell debate follows the same argument; legislation is catching up with scientific research.
"Not really in either the SPOT pro or con camp, but Government have the right to make anything illegal, should they decide it's not a great idea."
The power yes but not the right in my view. The device you mention was marketed as a means to evade legal regulatory devices so is not such a great example. After all, SPOT is not designed or used for any nefarious or shady purpose as far as I'm aware, in fact the opposite is true.
Wayne T has made a massive point. Perhaps the way to enjoy, look after and respect the outdoors could be taught early in the schooling of our children and then reinforced at secondary level.
After all we, of my generation, were all taught "The Country Code" in junior school.
I'm mostly with Barking on this debate which I've read with interest, though I acknowledge potential detriments. Surely 99.9% of people using the device will use it responsibly.
I like to travel alone, often abroad, so I'm going to get hold of a SPOT. In the past, I've been out of mobile contact for up to a week which is anxiety inducing for my partner. SPOT will allow me to keep her informed, and with the tracking facility might even get her interested in where I've been.
