I don't want this to degenerate into a bun fight. The premise was that folk might survive if found quickly and were searchable and that saying trauma is the only issue is misleading. Folk have the right to decide on whatever they choose and its what makes what we have special. I think its great that skiers are more searchable and ski patrols take that seriously. Mountaineers make different choices and long may that continue, as should information on what might keep them safer if they wanted to think that way. I would absolutely defend everyones right to make their own decisions on that. Right now I am more concerned that I might need to mow the lawn before I get my ski's on. WTF

Introduce compulsory strip searches. Nothing short of indefinite internment in the Tyndrum Gold mines for those venturing above the 800m contour in winter not fully equipped.

Failing that get Donald J Trump to build a beautiful wall along every 800m contour and send "them" all back to where they came from but not before billing the transgressors for the cost.

That should fix it once and for all.

Classic Nirvana fallacy there. The purpose would be to change peoples behaviour. Go actually read my post engage your brain and see how legislative changes can and do change peoples behaviour. Seat belts is just one example of a long line I could bring up that illustrate the point.

So first how many people die in avalanches out side these dates in Scotland? Very few is the answer. The second point is that people who go walking in snow on the Scottish mountains do so both inside and outside these dates. By forcing them to have the right gear (probably the biggest reason for not using it at the moment) at the most dangerous times and wear it, they get into the habit of doing so and will start doing so at all times.

You are presumably against compulsory seat belt wearing laws because people should have freedom to choose and seat belts don't save everyone anyway.



Never heard such a ridiculous assertion in all my life. However if anyone is idiotic enough to deliberately go out without avalanche gear when they should as a result of my hard line then the sooner they remove themselves from the gene pool the better as far as I am concerned.

Jabuzzard,
Wow! Such harshness towards the well being and welfare of your fellow human beings! Sort of undermines your whole proposal, do you not think?



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 19.48hrs Mon 12 Dec 16 by paraffin.

Crank - not patronising at all, really appreciate your perspective.

I am currently working backwards through the The Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland reports from 2002, within the months defined by Whalley and Sharp. So far it would appear that significantly more people are dying within those months of heart attacks than in avalanche incidents. Do we thus propose legislation, with swineging penalties if not adhered to, that all hillgoers must carry a defibrillator?

All the beginners in the ptarmigan basin will need tranceiver training before they put skis on.

Hi, this involving education, heart conditions and the administering of electric shocks for their own good?
Literally truly shocking . . .
[youtu.be]

Jabuzzard,

Difficult to know where to start (or even if I should)...

Of course seat belts save lives, and of course I am not against compulsory seat belt wearing. You're not comparing like for like though.

I've had a good think about your attitude towards enforcing legislation, and I am certain that despite spending time with hundreds of people in the hills over the years, you are the only apparent hillgoer (I presume you are?) that I am aware of with this view. It's so completely unworkable and flawed that you must see that it cannot work?

Even more alarming, is your dismissal of education. Everyone makes mistakes occasionally, but the blog post by the OP quite correctly stresses education as the primary weapon against being avalanched. Understanding the environment you are in is a far greater life saver than carrying some kit that you are being forced to carry, but probably won't take the trouble to learn how to use (ironically). Why you would dismiss that, and prefer the negative approach of fining people is beyond me, and I suspect most other people who spend any time in the hills. The SAIS avalanche reports and blogs advocate education, even with subtle phrases like "careful route selection required". Of course, take the kit and know how to use it, but do so when conditions dictate it is appropriate to take it.

I went for a run round some hills at Glenshee a week past Sunday. I did not take any avalanche kit. If I had encountered anyone carrying that kit, or advocating carrying that kit on that day, i'd question their experience and ability to make sound judgement based upon the conditions and terrain. A sweeping generalisation that it's December, and you must carry it regardless is ridiculous, particularly this December (so far). Different story in November, obviously.

As for my point about your legislative approach costing lives, well I stand by that, maybe as stubbornly as you would see people financially ruined. Because, it's that threat of a fine that will do it. You can introduce legislation, but I'd bet the vast majority of responsible, experienced folk going hillwalking wouldn't take the kit because it's just not necessary for their day out. But when someone stumbles and injures their ankle and can no longer walk, or gets lost, and needs to call for help, they will think twice because jabuzzards legislation would see them fined for not carrying avalanche kit. This puts them at risk, whether you argue that they should just carry the kit or not, you will put them at risk. Whereas you may see fit to have them "remove themselves from the gene pool" (really!), i'd prefer that they lived, irrespective of the cause of the incident.

^ +1

Hi Turfty
The defibs are a very interesting example. They are everywhere as you know, and 95% of public access ones may never be used. But without that saturation quite a few folk would not be here as the stats prove that this saturation gives the best chance of survival. Right place right time etc. Recco is just the same.
As a paramedic before the NHS routinely had that skill base, and still within a busy MRT, I had a defib from Marquette electronics back in 1992 when as far as I am aware no other Scottish MRT's had one. The ridicule from within MR was stunning (curly hair doo’s, waste of money their all dead) and yet we had it because folk were having MI's before then and not surviving rescue and the concept off early defibrillation was already being proven in cities like Seatttle. Since then in various forms the successors of these defibs have been adopted by MR as folk woke up to the value of pre hospital defibrillation as part of the chain of survival even up a mountain. It was good to read of the successful resuscitation of a mountain biker by Tweed Valley with theirs a couple of months back. That isn’t the first, but notable none the less and credit to these guys. Right place right time.
Everything is uphill work when introducing new technology or ideas and I find the same with Recco. I will be the first to admit it’s only another tool, but one I feel worth having based on how the defibs went from these early days and my own experience which includes working with folk who have used Recco successfully via ski rescue and FIPS. One Scottish success would be good enough even if it took the same 34 years.
I am a bit saddened the debate is about legislation and regret posting what I thought was a positive piece of news offering folk knowledge of a choice of being more searchable from within the continuum of avalanche education. Stressing the positive “no rescue needed”, backward to, self rescue, organised rescue and companion rescue at the negative end of the scale. Recco is at the negative end – something went wrong.
Freedom of choice is everything to the spirit of Scottish mountaineering and backcountry and worth sticking up for. However, I am left wondering how to positively put out an education message or concept such as “be searchable” which is promoted by the international commission on alpine rescue and endorsed by the CAF, ESF, REGA et al and yet in the UK it’s like poking a hornets nest.

RECCO reflector in every funicular ticket! first proposed 40 years ago ..



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 10.51hrs Tue 13 Dec 16 by somnambulant_sasquatch.

Hi CranKitUpGear,

Sorry that it degenerated into a “discussion” off topic, but I have no time for this Daily Mail-esque legislation nonsense.

I agree that Recco has a place (after avoidance, and shovel/probe/transceiver/knowledge of use), and the attitude that helping people be searchable is only a good thing. I can see that it could be useful locating people in situations other than avalanches, such as in poor weather (e.g. my examples cited above). No batteries to go flat, weighs next to nothing, and in the worst case, reduces recovery time and exposure to risk for the searchers.

It’s a chicken and egg. For it to be effective, searchers need to have the detectors, and need to be located where they can be deployed quickly. There’s limited point in the searchers having the detectors if no one is wearing the reflectors. That’s not going to improve unless people like yourself try to get the message across, as you are doing, and people start to wear the reflectors.

With that in mind, I am happy to buy a couple of reflectors from you, and to start wearing them. How’s best to sort it out?

Scott

Nevis Range have them at the ticket office and Freeze Pro in Edinburgh have them. If you email me at crankitupgear@aol.com I can sort it out quickly for you.

Cheers
Davy

My pennies worth:

I had a 'run' up Ben Lawers a few weeks ago, not being that much snow, I took my skinny skis and did not to tackle serious stuff, I left the avi gear behind. We did end up crossing an area with sufficient slope and snow to slip - it felt quite stable, but who can be certain? Next time I will take the gear!

So yes, get the gear and carry it. That said I think the risk is somewhat exaggerated even though the hazard is extreme. The reality may be that more people are killed driving to the slopes?

Being of an age when I can remember seat belts being introduced, I recall they felt uncomfortable (they where) and you felt trapped - hence the poor initial take-up. I now feel very vulnerable without one - I guess the % would not drop even if it was not compulsory (though not sure how / if this reasoning applies to avi gear).

Transceiver, shovel and probe at the ready!
Is there any way to tune out signals from Jabuzzard! ;-)