4 ms·
> Also, cell coverage would probably reduce the number of "emergencies". Hikers who are two days late is an emergency, but not if they can phone someone to say
by zkms 9y ago
> Also, cell coverage would probably reduce the number of "emergencies". Hikers who are two days late is an emergency, but not if they can phone someone to say they safe and waiting out the weather.
This also holds without the quotes; people who have access to their phones can communicate amongst themselves in the early stage of a potential emergency and fix the issue themselves without having to wait until shit gets so bad that they can legitimately summon a full-blown SAR response.
- ghaff 9y agoThe inverse is also true. You're responsible for your own safety while hiking etc. You should have no expectation that SAR will come out looking for you because you've done something stupid that requires someone to help you. [ADDED: And depending on electronics generally is pretty much a gamble.]
- sandworm101 9y agoAllowing people to do stupid things is part of our culture. Without SAR things like skiing, climbing, sailing, surfing and even basic camping wouldnt exist. If a national park is setup, and people allowed in, we should expect some level of SAR coverage and notice of that coverage. Otherwise, non-pros attempt private rescues that often end badly.
- ghaff 9y ago>Without SAR things like skiing, climbing, sailing, surfing and even basic camping wouldnt exist. Lots of people have done and continue to do those and other activities at times and places where there's no SAR. And, especially if you are in a remote area or bad weather, there is no guarantee that SAR is going to find/help you. It may not have been your meaning, but it's a really bad idea to go into the wilderness with the mindset that someone will always come to your rescue if something goes wrong.