10 ms·

I have one of these beacons and take it with me most times I'm going out alone into the wilderness. I don't want to be the guy who had to cut his own arm off af

by jxcl 7y ago

I have one of these beacons and take it with me most times I'm going out alone into the wilderness. I don't want to be the guy who had to cut his own arm off after it got trapped by a falling boulder. That being said, this is an interesting spin on the number. I've been hearing from friends on Search and Rescue crews that an increasing number of people are going out hiking being completely unprepared for any possible emergency, thinking that they'll just use their cell phone if anything goes wrong. I wonder if any of these beacon carriers fall closer into that camp than true serious conditions, though I suspect that simply carrying a beacon puts you in a higher preparedness bracket than the cell-phone only crew.

vegardx 7y ago
I'd love to see some actual statistics on this. This assumes that people knowingly do something dangerous and are choosing to ignore it because they think someone can just come and save them. I would argue that this is unlikely, unprepared people are unprepared in all aspects of it. Carrying a cellphone doens't mean they thought of it as some kind of security measurement. People just rarely go somewhere without it. They simply don't know any better.
- JarlUlvi 7y ago
  It only takes one trip/slip/fall, one rock slide, one sprain, one break, one break, one deadfall, one snake, one asthma attack, one sting, or one rabid animal to turn an outdoor trip into a potential life or death situation. 99.99% of the times I've spend in the forest and desert has been "safe". It is the .01% and .001%s that get you.
  - sneak 7y ago
    That’s why I have two PLBs. Two is one and one is none.
- jxramos 7y ago
  I heard some organizations try to collect fees from repeated offenders who tax search and rescue operations too frequently. Others collect under situations of negligence. https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly#close https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-publ...
  - bluGill 7y ago
    I've heard of some organizations rejecting this because if it wasn't for all the unprepared people heading out and getting in over their head they would have to pay someone to go out an pretend to need rescued for training purposes. Having someone who really needs help is much better training than a planned mission - even if they shouldn't have needed help. Your mileage may vary, each rescue team has different situations. In some areas they get too many calls (remember a call takes the rescuers away from their family and other thing they would do instead) and should do something about those who didn't make at least some attempt to be prepared.
    - MayeulC 7y ago
      Well, that is an interesting take, but if collecting such a tax really helped reduce the number of people going out unprepared, thus needing help, it would really be a no-brainer to do so, as it could avoid people getting hurt or killed in the first place.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        Problem is people who know about the tax will refuse rescue if they think they can get out without paying it - thus killing more people because they refused the rescue.
    - japhyr 7y ago
      I've been involved in mountain rescue for almost 20 years now. The main reason I've heard over the years for not charging for rescue is that it causes people to delay asking for help. This results in more high-risk calls for rescuers, and worse outcomes for people in need of rescue. In most situations, the cost of a rescue is not nearly as significant as media accounts portray. People love to cite the cost of helicopters in USCG rescues. USCG pilots need to fly a certain number of hours; those hours can come from missions or training sessions. When they fly more missions, they reduce their training hours. Creating a rescue policy for really high-traffic areas like the most popular national parks is a different story. Those are outlier situations, and we shouldn't have the same policy for SAR in average rural areas that we do for popular national parks. Edit: I meant to add another reason for not charging for rescue. I have been on missions where we reached the missing person, and the person initially refused our help because they thought we were going to charge them. The same conversation played out on the mountain that we're seeing play out in the comments here. In the end, these people are very happy to receive the assistance they needed; they were not going to get out of the mountains on their own.
stopads 7y ago
This is really cool, I had no idea these exist and are somewhat affordable. For example: https://www.amazon.com/Resqlink-PLB-375-Personal-Locator-Buoyant/dp/B07XG84FVP https://www.amazon.com/Resqlink-PLB-375-Personal-Locator-Buo... I'm going to pick something like this up before my next Wyoming adventure.
- linsomniac 7y ago
  I've had the ResQLink for 3.5 years, haven't had to use it for anything other than the test cycle, and have been happy with it. I wrote more details in a reply to the parent.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Almost all the reviews for these are "haven't had to use". Look at this product https://www.amazon.com/ACR-ResQLink-400-Buoyant-Personal/dp/B07PPJ8RRM/ https://www.amazon.com/ACR-ResQLink-400-Buoyant-Personal/dp/... 13 5-star ratings - everyone should have one, I haven't had to use mine but it gives me peace of mind 1 1-star rating - gave it to my son because he jet skis. After a while it was rusted. Gave it a shot, didn't work. Reminds me of this xkcd https://xkcd.com/937/ https://xkcd.com/937/
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    That's a fair point, and historically it was very hard to arrange to test a unit unless you were the manufacturer. So even a serious reviewer couldn't say "The FooCorp RescueMax failed after just six minutes in our ice water bath" or "Our testers weren't able to understand the orientation instructions for the FooCorp RescueMax and test transmissions were not received in the canyon test area" because they weren't supposed to try the actual function of the beacon at all. I believe COSPAS SARSAT and the relevant US authorities got it together so that it is now possible to arrange a test carve out, agree with everybody when and where the units will be tested and not cause helicopters of annoyed rescuers to arrive so long as you stay in the agreed area and only test in the agreed time frame. But it can't be made trivial, so chances are only really hardcore survivalist outfits will do that work.
  - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Analemma_ 7y ago
Some Search and Rescue organizations now bill you if they determine you had to be rescued because of gross negligence (if you were prepared and simply unlucky, it's still free). This can be tens of thousands of dollars if they had to use helicopters and the like.
- btashton 7y ago
  There is a lot packed into the pay for search and rescue model. One of the last things I want someone to be doing in an emergency situation is to be thinking can I afford help right now or should I just try harder to get off this cliff with a broken ankle. Then there is the question of what really is the cost. If a helicopter is involved frequently the operation cost if figured in, but these in the US are almost always military helicopters and they count these operations towards training hours. I would much rather have those hours spent to helping someone in danger than burning fuel for no emergency.
japhyr 7y ago
I've been an active member of a search and rescue team in southeast Alaska since 2002. This has been a really interesting period to be involved in SAR. When I started, very few people had cell phones or GPS devices. Then came a period where almost everyone had a cell phone. Then people had cell phones with embedded GPS. Now we're seeing many people with GPS-enabled mapping software such as Gaia on their devices. I haven't analyzed the data, but these trends have definitely changed our callout pattern. We used to get regular calls for people who were overdue, and the only communication was with the person who reported them overdue. When cell phones first came out, it seemed we got a few more calls from people who had gone less prepared. But we're a coastal community, and handheld VHF radios played the role of a cell phone in our community before cell phones came out, so basic communication didn't change drastically at first. I think things started to change once everyone had a phone, and there were enough towers to have decent coverage throughout our mountainous area. We get far fewer callouts where there's been no direct communication with the missing person. Now we tend to have direct communication with the person, or we are talking to a reporting party who has had some direct communication with the missing person. We are responding to known locations more often - the person is lost, but we know where they are and our mission is to reach them, and guide them safely out. Or they're injured/ immobile, and we go right to them and evacuate them. Now we're starting to see people who are following others' routes using apps like Gaia, and getting in over their heads. People see a route on Gaia, and they think it's a trail or a clear route. In our mountains, experienced people are often bushwhacking through steep terrain where there's only one route that works, and if you don't know how to navigate that terrain you can get into dangerous cliffed-out areas quickly. And once you get off route, it can be really hard to get back to a safe place because there's no safe direct route back to the GPS track. All of this has been exacerbated by the local effects of climate change. We're in a rainforest, and the vast majority of our days used to be overcast with drizzle. A good deal of our callouts were for people who went out in a break of clear weather, then got stuck when the clouds rolled back in and they couldn't see where to go. We get much longer periods of clear weather - weeks and months instead of hours and days - so people are going out in clear weather and coming back in clear weather. We also have ice fields and glaciers that are receding, leaving behind blue ice that's much more difficult to navigate than old snow, and loose silt and rocks that's much easier to slide on than exposed, weathered dirt with vegetation. The interaction of people and wilderness is always going to be there, and the tools available are always going to influence how people interact with the wilderness. It's not always getting better or worse. People adapt to the tools available, and sometimes use them to get into more dangerous situations, and sometimes use them to avoid and get out of dangerous situations.
AWildC182 7y ago
Carry one as well. This is obviously anecdotal and may be because of the people I hang around with but everyone I know who carries also never hikes without a bunch of other standard safety kit and is very experienced. I suspect that being willing to buy a $200 beacon means you're aware enough of the risks and of what safety gear is out there to seek extra protection when possible.
- ghaff 7y ago
  At some level, I don't love the always connected idea. But if I were to do serious solo backpacking at this point (or were regularly going into remote areas by car with or without a companion), I admit it would probably be prudent for me to carry a beacon.
  - rmcpherson 7y ago
    It’s really not always connected in the way of internet or satellite two way communication. The beacon’s are only there if you need them for emergencies and do not allow people to contact you. There are some like the Spot devices that allow 2 way text via iridium satellites, however.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      It's connected in an emergency--which is what really matters. Though TBH, I'd probably get one of the messaging devices if I got one so I could do "All going well" to people who might care especially if I were running late.
munificent 7y ago
Risk compensation [0] has been studied and gets a lot of press because it tickles that combination of psychology + counter-intuitive result + play into narrative that people suck. As far as I know, though, most modern studies show that while there is some amount of risk compensation (people engage in riskier behavior after adopting a safety apparatus), the compensation is less than the benefit of the safety measure. With beacons in particular, a potential compounding factor is that many people may not have gone out into the wilderness at all before beacons became available. So maybe there is a net increase in beacon usage but it could be because of an even greater increase in outdoor participation. I think it's a net good for people to spend time in the outdoors, both for them personally and because it encourages society as a whole to prioritize preserving the environment. So if that results in more people needing to be rescued, it may still be worth it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
- tialaramex 7y ago
  Risk Compensation has its worst effects when the prior risk itself is concealed by the technology. IIRC anti-lock braking doesn't drive up accident rates for those who grew up with it (all cars they drive have ABS, that's just how cars work as far as they're concerned) but it did for those for whom it just made loss of control mysteriously vanish in their new car. They would think "I guess I'm just good at driving" and engage in behaviour which the car was now compensating for with ABS, not realising that this mean they were outside the safe performance envelope. AEB deliberately is a scary experience to prevent this mistake. If your car's AEB triggers you'll be suddenly and violently brought to a complete halt in order that the feeling is "Oh shit, I fucked up, is everybody OK?" not "Wow I'm a great driver". With a beacon the experience is likewise not great. It's not "Activate beacon, rescuers magically teleport in and save the day". There's zero real feedback, so most people will be worried that it hasn't been effective, nobody is coming. After an hour, or two, or more, rescuers may show up looking for you. That's a long time to be lost or injured in the middle of nowhere.
  - myself248 7y ago
    > There's zero real feedback That's why Return Link Messages in the Galileo network are so interesting. Basically, there's a super low bandwidth message channel embedded in the GNSS data stream. Its sole purpose is to tell beacons "We saw your beacon and we're responding to it".
reaperducer 7y ago
I've been hearing from friends on Search and Rescue crews that an increasing number of people are going out hiking being completely unprepared for any possible emergency, thinking that they'll just use their cell phone if anything goes wrong. This is so true. I live in the desert, and it's amazing the number of people who simply don't take the natural world seriously. The dead and rescued are almost always tourists. And for some reason, almost always from Europe (I suspect because my observation has been that Asians tend to travel in large groups on air conditioned buses). They drive rental cars into deep sand and get stuck and die. They run out of gas and get stuck and die. They never bring enough food or water and don't know what to do in an emergency. I was at a hotel on the Navajo Reservation (Arizona/New Mexico/Utah) about a year ago and there was a British couple arguing with the manager that of course their cell phone should work, they bought it in San Francisco. I tired to explain to them that the whole reason people visit places like this is to get away from technology. Even though I'm sure there are remote places in Europe, they had no concept that there are places in the world where there's no cell service. A couple of years ago there was an article in the newspaper about a German guy who decided to rent a Harley Davidson and drive through the desert like some kind of David Hasselhof fantasy. It was 115° and he was in full-on black leather gear. They found him dead on the side of the road, still sitting on his motorcycle with his helmet on. --:-- Editing to add the results from a four-second Google News search: authorities in California launched a search for Pi-Wei Hung, 40, early Sunday afternoon... the woman’s vehicle was discovered stuck in the sand on the shoulder... and then died in the heat as she tried to walk out of the area. The high temperature that day was 113 degrees. a 60-year-old tourist from Germany died from heat exposure... not far from his where his motorcycle was parked, upright and in working order, in the 118-degree heat. ...two French tourists got their car stuck in loose sand... no one knew their specific travel route, and they were out of cellphone range in temperatures above 110 degrees.
- davidw 7y ago
  > I'm sure there are remote places in Europe There are a few, here and there, but it's just completely different. Everywhere in Italy (I lived there a number of years) there are people. It might just be a little mountain hut, or a cabin or something, but there are pretty much always other people around. Here in Oregon, I can ride my bike to places where I almost won't see other people all day.
thaumaturgy 7y ago
I'm in search and rescue near the Tahoe area. So far we've had good luck with beacon call-outs. The cases we've responded to have almost entirely been folks that were legitimately stuck or lost, and yes, they were somewhat under-prepared for the situation they were in, but that's just the modern reality of outdoor play and it makes no more sense to expect all recreationists to be perfectly prepared than it makes to expect all software developers to build some idealized unit-tested software. I have heard from other SAR groups that the beacons have been a mixed bag, and they're getting too many call-outs from people who just got tired and want a ride home. Those people deserve a verbal chewing-out from the local coordinator, but on balance I'd still rather everyone go out with beacons and have a good time and hit that button if they need to.
- tlrobinson 7y ago
  > I have heard from other SAR groups that the beacons have been a mixed bag, and they're getting too many call-outs from people who just got tired and want a ride home. It seems like charging people for the cost of the rescue would solve that problem.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    How about if a judge gets to decide if they are required to be force-enrolled in to a class that teaches safety in similarly fitting situations and/or some quantity of community service from a list of activities that are fitting of rehabilitation and improving the commons.
    - thaumaturgy 7y ago
      I'm pleased to say that a handful of past search subjects have gone on to become SAR volunteers themselves, so some people already do this without needing a judge's involvement.
    - 1123581321 7y ago
      Those would enormously prohibit calling in, more than money for many people due to the potential public embarrassment, let alone the time, extra required PTO and potential cognitive load from the legal situation.
ineedasername 7y ago
I'd be extremely reluctant to go to any wilderness or hiking area and rely on my cell phone. Sure, coverage is much better than years ago, but even a few weeks ago I was driving a few hundred miles. I checked ahead of time to see about possible stops along the way, cell coverage, etc. because some of the route went through the middle of nowhere. Cell maps said I had full coverage the whole way, but there was a hundred mile stretch where every few minutes I'd lose coverage for a mile or two.
ChuckMcM 7y ago
After reading about a CNET employee dying on their way home in the mountains because they were out of cell service on winter roads and were stuck I got one. We are on our second one, the new ones are even smaller than the originals, and carry it with us when ever we travel, especially in the back country. It is the best/cheapest insurance one can buy.

by jxcl 7y ago

vegardx 7y ago

I'd love to see some actual statistics on this. This assumes that people knowingly do something dangerous and are choosing to ignore it because they think someone can just come and save them. I would argue that this is unlikely, unprepared people are unprepared in all aspects of it. Carrying a cellphone doens't mean they thought of it as some kind of security measurement. People just rarely go somewhere without it. They simply don't know any better.

JarlUlvi 7y ago
It only takes one trip/slip/fall, one rock slide, one sprain, one break, one break, one deadfall, one snake, one asthma attack, one sting, or one rabid animal to turn an outdoor trip into a potential life or death situation. 99.99% of the times I've spend in the forest and desert has been "safe". It is the .01% and .001%s that get you.
- sneak 7y ago
  That’s why I have two PLBs. Two is one and one is none.
jxramos 7y ago
I heard some organizations try to collect fees from repeated offenders who tax search and rescue operations too frequently. Others collect under situations of negligence. https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-public-service-not-exactly#close https://www.outsideonline.com/1986496/search-and-rescue-publ...
- bluGill 7y ago
  I've heard of some organizations rejecting this because if it wasn't for all the unprepared people heading out and getting in over their head they would have to pay someone to go out an pretend to need rescued for training purposes. Having someone who really needs help is much better training than a planned mission - even if they shouldn't have needed help. Your mileage may vary, each rescue team has different situations. In some areas they get too many calls (remember a call takes the rescuers away from their family and other thing they would do instead) and should do something about those who didn't make at least some attempt to be prepared.
  - MayeulC 7y ago
    Well, that is an interesting take, but if collecting such a tax really helped reduce the number of people going out unprepared, thus needing help, it would really be a no-brainer to do so, as it could avoid people getting hurt or killed in the first place.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      Problem is people who know about the tax will refuse rescue if they think they can get out without paying it - thus killing more people because they refused the rescue.
  - japhyr 7y ago
    I've been involved in mountain rescue for almost 20 years now. The main reason I've heard over the years for not charging for rescue is that it causes people to delay asking for help. This results in more high-risk calls for rescuers, and worse outcomes for people in need of rescue. In most situations, the cost of a rescue is not nearly as significant as media accounts portray. People love to cite the cost of helicopters in USCG rescues. USCG pilots need to fly a certain number of hours; those hours can come from missions or training sessions. When they fly more missions, they reduce their training hours. Creating a rescue policy for really high-traffic areas like the most popular national parks is a different story. Those are outlier situations, and we shouldn't have the same policy for SAR in average rural areas that we do for popular national parks. Edit: I meant to add another reason for not charging for rescue. I have been on missions where we reached the missing person, and the person initially refused our help because they thought we were going to charge them. The same conversation played out on the mountain that we're seeing play out in the comments here. In the end, these people are very happy to receive the assistance they needed; they were not going to get out of the mountains on their own.

stopads 7y ago

This is really cool, I had no idea these exist and are somewhat affordable. For example: https://www.amazon.com/Resqlink-PLB-375-Personal-Locator-Buoyant/dp/B07XG84FVP https://www.amazon.com/Resqlink-PLB-375-Personal-Locator-Buo... I'm going to pick something like this up before my next Wyoming adventure.

linsomniac 7y ago
I've had the ResQLink for 3.5 years, haven't had to use it for anything other than the test cycle, and have been happy with it. I wrote more details in a reply to the parent.
scarejunba 7y ago
Almost all the reviews for these are "haven't had to use". Look at this product https://www.amazon.com/ACR-ResQLink-400-Buoyant-Personal/dp/B07PPJ8RRM/ https://www.amazon.com/ACR-ResQLink-400-Buoyant-Personal/dp/... 13 5-star ratings - everyone should have one, I haven't had to use mine but it gives me peace of mind 1 1-star rating - gave it to my son because he jet skis. After a while it was rusted. Gave it a shot, didn't work. Reminds me of this xkcd https://xkcd.com/937/ https://xkcd.com/937/
- tialaramex 7y ago
  That's a fair point, and historically it was very hard to arrange to test a unit unless you were the manufacturer. So even a serious reviewer couldn't say "The FooCorp RescueMax failed after just six minutes in our ice water bath" or "Our testers weren't able to understand the orientation instructions for the FooCorp RescueMax and test transmissions were not received in the canyon test area" because they weren't supposed to try the actual function of the beacon at all. I believe COSPAS SARSAT and the relevant US authorities got it together so that it is now possible to arrange a test carve out, agree with everybody when and where the units will be tested and not cause helicopters of annoyed rescuers to arrive so long as you stay in the agreed area and only test in the agreed time frame. But it can't be made trivial, so chances are only really hardcore survivalist outfits will do that work.
- 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Analemma_ 7y ago

Some Search and Rescue organizations now bill you if they determine you had to be rescued because of gross negligence (if you were prepared and simply unlucky, it's still free). This can be tens of thousands of dollars if they had to use helicopters and the like.

btashton 7y ago
There is a lot packed into the pay for search and rescue model. One of the last things I want someone to be doing in an emergency situation is to be thinking can I afford help right now or should I just try harder to get off this cliff with a broken ankle. Then there is the question of what really is the cost. If a helicopter is involved frequently the operation cost if figured in, but these in the US are almost always military helicopters and they count these operations towards training hours. I would much rather have those hours spent to helping someone in danger than burning fuel for no emergency.

japhyr 7y ago

I've been an active member of a search and rescue team in southeast Alaska since 2002. This has been a really interesting period to be involved in SAR. When I started, very few people had cell phones or GPS devices. Then came a period where almost everyone had a cell phone. Then people had cell phones with embedded GPS. Now we're seeing many people with GPS-enabled mapping software such as Gaia on their devices. I haven't analyzed the data, but these trends have definitely changed our callout pattern. We used to get regular calls for people who were overdue, and the only communication was with the person who reported them overdue. When cell phones first came out, it seemed we got a few more calls from people who had gone less prepared. But we're a coastal community, and handheld VHF radios played the role of a cell phone in our community before cell phones came out, so basic communication didn't change drastically at first. I think things started to change once everyone had a phone, and there were enough towers to have decent coverage throughout our mountainous area. We get far fewer callouts where there's been no direct communication with the missing person. Now we tend to have direct communication with the person, or we are talking to a reporting party who has had some direct communication with the missing person. We are responding to known locations more often - the person is lost, but we know where they are and our mission is to reach them, and guide them safely out. Or they're injured/ immobile, and we go right to them and evacuate them. Now we're starting to see people who are following others' routes using apps like Gaia, and getting in over their heads. People see a route on Gaia, and they think it's a trail or a clear route. In our mountains, experienced people are often bushwhacking through steep terrain where there's only one route that works, and if you don't know how to navigate that terrain you can get into dangerous cliffed-out areas quickly. And once you get off route, it can be really hard to get back to a safe place because there's no safe direct route back to the GPS track. All of this has been exacerbated by the local effects of climate change. We're in a rainforest, and the vast majority of our days used to be overcast with drizzle. A good deal of our callouts were for people who went out in a break of clear weather, then got stuck when the clouds rolled back in and they couldn't see where to go. We get much longer periods of clear weather - weeks and months instead of hours and days - so people are going out in clear weather and coming back in clear weather. We also have ice fields and glaciers that are receding, leaving behind blue ice that's much more difficult to navigate than old snow, and loose silt and rocks that's much easier to slide on than exposed, weathered dirt with vegetation. The interaction of people and wilderness is always going to be there, and the tools available are always going to influence how people interact with the wilderness. It's not always getting better or worse. People adapt to the tools available, and sometimes use them to get into more dangerous situations, and sometimes use them to avoid and get out of dangerous situations.

AWildC182 7y ago

Carry one as well. This is obviously anecdotal and may be because of the people I hang around with but everyone I know who carries also never hikes without a bunch of other standard safety kit and is very experienced. I suspect that being willing to buy a $200 beacon means you're aware enough of the risks and of what safety gear is out there to seek extra protection when possible.

ghaff 7y ago
At some level, I don't love the always connected idea. But if I were to do serious solo backpacking at this point (or were regularly going into remote areas by car with or without a companion), I admit it would probably be prudent for me to carry a beacon.
- rmcpherson 7y ago
  It’s really not always connected in the way of internet or satellite two way communication. The beacon’s are only there if you need them for emergencies and do not allow people to contact you. There are some like the Spot devices that allow 2 way text via iridium satellites, however.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    It's connected in an emergency--which is what really matters. Though TBH, I'd probably get one of the messaging devices if I got one so I could do "All going well" to people who might care especially if I were running late.

munificent 7y ago

Risk compensation [0] has been studied and gets a lot of press because it tickles that combination of psychology + counter-intuitive result + play into narrative that people suck. As far as I know, though, most modern studies show that while there is some amount of risk compensation (people engage in riskier behavior after adopting a safety apparatus), the compensation is less than the benefit of the safety measure. With beacons in particular, a potential compounding factor is that many people may not have gone out into the wilderness at all before beacons became available. So maybe there is a net increase in beacon usage but it could be because of an even greater increase in outdoor participation. I think it's a net good for people to spend time in the outdoors, both for them personally and because it encourages society as a whole to prioritize preserving the environment. So if that results in more people needing to be rescued, it may still be worth it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

tialaramex 7y ago
Risk Compensation has its worst effects when the prior risk itself is concealed by the technology. IIRC anti-lock braking doesn't drive up accident rates for those who grew up with it (all cars they drive have ABS, that's just how cars work as far as they're concerned) but it did for those for whom it just made loss of control mysteriously vanish in their new car. They would think "I guess I'm just good at driving" and engage in behaviour which the car was now compensating for with ABS, not realising that this mean they were outside the safe performance envelope. AEB deliberately is a scary experience to prevent this mistake. If your car's AEB triggers you'll be suddenly and violently brought to a complete halt in order that the feeling is "Oh shit, I fucked up, is everybody OK?" not "Wow I'm a great driver". With a beacon the experience is likewise not great. It's not "Activate beacon, rescuers magically teleport in and save the day". There's zero real feedback, so most people will be worried that it hasn't been effective, nobody is coming. After an hour, or two, or more, rescuers may show up looking for you. That's a long time to be lost or injured in the middle of nowhere.
- myself248 7y ago
  > There's zero real feedback That's why Return Link Messages in the Galileo network are so interesting. Basically, there's a super low bandwidth message channel embedded in the GNSS data stream. Its sole purpose is to tell beacons "We saw your beacon and we're responding to it".

reaperducer 7y ago

I've been hearing from friends on Search and Rescue crews that an increasing number of people are going out hiking being completely unprepared for any possible emergency, thinking that they'll just use their cell phone if anything goes wrong. This is so true. I live in the desert, and it's amazing the number of people who simply don't take the natural world seriously. The dead and rescued are almost always tourists. And for some reason, almost always from Europe (I suspect because my observation has been that Asians tend to travel in large groups on air conditioned buses). They drive rental cars into deep sand and get stuck and die. They run out of gas and get stuck and die. They never bring enough food or water and don't know what to do in an emergency. I was at a hotel on the Navajo Reservation (Arizona/New Mexico/Utah) about a year ago and there was a British couple arguing with the manager that of course their cell phone should work, they bought it in San Francisco. I tired to explain to them that the whole reason people visit places like this is to get away from technology. Even though I'm sure there are remote places in Europe, they had no concept that there are places in the world where there's no cell service. A couple of years ago there was an article in the newspaper about a German guy who decided to rent a Harley Davidson and drive through the desert like some kind of David Hasselhof fantasy. It was 115° and he was in full-on black leather gear. They found him dead on the side of the road, still sitting on his motorcycle with his helmet on. --:-- Editing to add the results from a four-second Google News search: authorities in California launched a search for Pi-Wei Hung, 40, early Sunday afternoon... the woman’s vehicle was discovered stuck in the sand on the shoulder... and then died in the heat as she tried to walk out of the area. The high temperature that day was 113 degrees. a 60-year-old tourist from Germany died from heat exposure... not far from his where his motorcycle was parked, upright and in working order, in the 118-degree heat. ...two French tourists got their car stuck in loose sand... no one knew their specific travel route, and they were out of cellphone range in temperatures above 110 degrees.

davidw 7y ago
> I'm sure there are remote places in Europe There are a few, here and there, but it's just completely different. Everywhere in Italy (I lived there a number of years) there are people. It might just be a little mountain hut, or a cabin or something, but there are pretty much always other people around. Here in Oregon, I can ride my bike to places where I almost won't see other people all day.

thaumaturgy 7y ago

I'm in search and rescue near the Tahoe area. So far we've had good luck with beacon call-outs. The cases we've responded to have almost entirely been folks that were legitimately stuck or lost, and yes, they were somewhat under-prepared for the situation they were in, but that's just the modern reality of outdoor play and it makes no more sense to expect all recreationists to be perfectly prepared than it makes to expect all software developers to build some idealized unit-tested software. I have heard from other SAR groups that the beacons have been a mixed bag, and they're getting too many call-outs from people who just got tired and want a ride home. Those people deserve a verbal chewing-out from the local coordinator, but on balance I'd still rather everyone go out with beacons and have a good time and hit that button if they need to.

tlrobinson 7y ago
> I have heard from other SAR groups that the beacons have been a mixed bag, and they're getting too many call-outs from people who just got tired and want a ride home. It seems like charging people for the cost of the rescue would solve that problem.
- mjevans 7y ago
  How about if a judge gets to decide if they are required to be force-enrolled in to a class that teaches safety in similarly fitting situations and/or some quantity of community service from a list of activities that are fitting of rehabilitation and improving the commons.
  - thaumaturgy 7y ago
    I'm pleased to say that a handful of past search subjects have gone on to become SAR volunteers themselves, so some people already do this without needing a judge's involvement.
  - 1123581321 7y ago
    Those would enormously prohibit calling in, more than money for many people due to the potential public embarrassment, let alone the time, extra required PTO and potential cognitive load from the legal situation.

ineedasername 7y ago

I'd be extremely reluctant to go to any wilderness or hiking area and rely on my cell phone. Sure, coverage is much better than years ago, but even a few weeks ago I was driving a few hundred miles. I checked ahead of time to see about possible stops along the way, cell coverage, etc. because some of the route went through the middle of nowhere. Cell maps said I had full coverage the whole way, but there was a hundred mile stretch where every few minutes I'd lose coverage for a mile or two.

ChuckMcM 7y ago

After reading about a CNET employee dying on their way home in the mountains because they were out of cell service on winter roads and were stuck I got one. We are on our second one, the new ones are even smaller than the originals, and carry it with us when ever we travel, especially in the back country. It is the best/cheapest insurance one can buy.