This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Apparently the 'Call Kaye' phone in this morning will be debating this topic again. 'With 12 deaths this year in the Scottish mountains, isn't it time for something to be done?'.
Again, sensible points of view will be required, freedom of choice and action, correct interpretation of stats etc.
Again, sensible points of view will be required, freedom of choice and action, correct interpretation of stats etc.
In reply to cannichoutdoors:
Maybe we should restrict access to the roads more strictly. More people are killed there.
Why are the roads immune to this kind of thing?
Neil
Maybe we should restrict access to the roads more strictly. More people are killed there.
Why are the roads immune to this kind of thing?
Neil
In reply to cannichoutdoors: by the same logic we should be limiting the actions of troops in foreign climes.
On a serious note (as if the above wasn't) this is all about using health and safety to control access. Landowners in Scotland have never quite understood that it's not really theirs. No one should be able to "own" land. Simply work it.
On a serious note (as if the above wasn't) this is all about using health and safety to control access. Landowners in Scotland have never quite understood that it's not really theirs. No one should be able to "own" land. Simply work it.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Cafeful neil, we do restrict roads, otherwise 13 year olds would be creating mahem.
> (In reply to cannichoutdoors)
>
> Maybe we should restrict access to the roads more strictly. More people are killed there.
>
> Why are the roads immune to this kind of thing?
>
> Neil
>
> Maybe we should restrict access to the roads more strictly. More people are killed there.
>
> Why are the roads immune to this kind of thing?
>
> Neil
Cafeful neil, we do restrict roads, otherwise 13 year olds would be creating mahem.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yeah we could make everybody sit a test before they're allowed to drive, and if they don't pass then they're not allowed to!
Oh, hang on...
> (In reply to cannichoutdoors)
>
> Maybe we should restrict access to the roads more strictly. More people are killed there.
>
> Why are the roads immune to this kind of thing?
>
> Neil
>
> Maybe we should restrict access to the roads more strictly. More people are killed there.
>
> Why are the roads immune to this kind of thing?
>
> Neil
Yeah we could make everybody sit a test before they're allowed to drive, and if they don't pass then they're not allowed to!
Oh, hang on...
In reply to The Big Man:
No one? Really? No private ownership of any land in Scotland, no matter what size?
> On a serious note (as if the above wasn't) this is all about using health and safety to control access. Landowners in Scotland have never quite understood that it's not really theirs. No one should be able to "own" land. Simply work it.
No one? Really? No private ownership of any land in Scotland, no matter what size?
In reply to cannichoutdoors:
This report is worthwhile reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/09/scottish-highlands-mountain-rescue
David
> Again, sensible points of view will be required....
This report is worthwhile reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/09/scottish-highlands-mountain-rescue
David
In reply to cannichoutdoors:
Has someone got a book coming out or something?
To be honest, I'm tempted to suggest we should just ignore it now - there's no way restrictions are going to be brought in, unless they completely change the relationship between the population of Scotland and access to wild places, and I can't see that one having any traction at all, as it would run counter to all the other initiatives currently in place which are trying to get more people to go out and exercise.
Even if they did get as far as introducing legislation, who is going to police it, and where is the budget coming from?
It's a load of incoherent bollocks, which should be treated with the contempt it so richly deserves.
Has someone got a book coming out or something?
To be honest, I'm tempted to suggest we should just ignore it now - there's no way restrictions are going to be brought in, unless they completely change the relationship between the population of Scotland and access to wild places, and I can't see that one having any traction at all, as it would run counter to all the other initiatives currently in place which are trying to get more people to go out and exercise.
Even if they did get as far as introducing legislation, who is going to police it, and where is the budget coming from?
It's a load of incoherent bollocks, which should be treated with the contempt it so richly deserves.
In reply to Ditch_Jockey:
Agree, to even engage in the debate gives it legitimacy, it just deserves a bout of laughter and contempt, as do the people suggesting it.
Agree, to even engage in the debate gives it legitimacy, it just deserves a bout of laughter and contempt, as do the people suggesting it.
In reply to Sir Chasm: correct, we'd be political miles apart. We humans are so full of ourselves, we don't own the planet.
In reply to The Big Man:
Not the whole planet, but some humans own some bits of the planet.
> (In reply to Sir Chasm) correct, we'd be political miles apart. We humans are so full of ourselves, we don't own the planet.
Not the whole planet, but some humans own some bits of the planet.
In reply to The Big Man: I own the garden that surrounds my house. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't?
In reply to GridNorth:
Does he say that? If not it's best to presume that if someone doesn't say something then they dont mean it. The voices in your head seem lively today!
Does he say that? If not it's best to presume that if someone doesn't say something then they dont mean it. The voices in your head seem lively today!
In reply to Saor Alba: Yes, he explicitly does say that. I asked him if his policy would apply to any private ownership of land no matter what size. Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the thread.
In reply to cannichoutdoors:
Over 20 dead in France this winter in off piste skiing accidents already, often in guided parties, and one gendarme - it's been a very snowy winter and hasn't finished. So it's not particular to Scotland. I haven't heard much about limiting access to the mountains though. Also, following the Arva debates in previous threads, AFAIK they were all equipped but it didn't save them.
Over 20 dead in France this winter in off piste skiing accidents already, often in guided parties, and one gendarme - it's been a very snowy winter and hasn't finished. So it's not particular to Scotland. I haven't heard much about limiting access to the mountains though. Also, following the Arva debates in previous threads, AFAIK they were all equipped but it didn't save them.
In reply to cannichoutdoors:
'With 12 deaths this year in the Scottish mountains, isn't it time for something to be done?'.
Does she have a proposal? None of deaths of late seem to be people particularly short of experience. Maybe she can propose a test for being slightly unlucky?
'With 12 deaths this year in the Scottish mountains, isn't it time for something to be done?'.
Does she have a proposal? None of deaths of late seem to be people particularly short of experience. Maybe she can propose a test for being slightly unlucky?
In reply to MG:
I suspect the harsh economic realities of removing people from the Scottish mountains in winter would demolish them fairly early in the process.
A modest allocation of finance to encourage the dissemination of existing wisdom about journeying safely in the hills at this time of the year, better financial support for existing MRT provision, and broadening the geographic coverage of the SAIS would be money well spent, but none of that would necessarily have prevented any or all the deaths this year.
I suspect the harsh economic realities of removing people from the Scottish mountains in winter would demolish them fairly early in the process.
A modest allocation of finance to encourage the dissemination of existing wisdom about journeying safely in the hills at this time of the year, better financial support for existing MRT provision, and broadening the geographic coverage of the SAIS would be money well spent, but none of that would necessarily have prevented any or all the deaths this year.
In reply to cannichoutdoors:
Can't believe this nonsense is still doing the rounds!
My response to the issue (which rapidly became the most popular article on my blog):
http://www.alexroddie.com/2013/02/the-freedom-of-hills-is-under-threat.html
Can't believe this nonsense is still doing the rounds!
My response to the issue (which rapidly became the most popular article on my blog):
http://www.alexroddie.com/2013/02/the-freedom-of-hills-is-under-threat.html
In reply to cannichoutdoors:
It's never going to happen, we all know this. The only thing they can do is make you take out personal liability insurance for the rescues. Then all were doing is supporting the bmc which is only a good thing. MRS actually earn money aswell instead of volunteering.
It's never going to happen, we all know this. The only thing they can do is make you take out personal liability insurance for the rescues. Then all were doing is supporting the bmc which is only a good thing. MRS actually earn money aswell instead of volunteering.
Theoretically I dont really have a huge personal problem with taking out insurance to help finance my local MRT but then again I donate to them and take part in fundraisers regularly anyway. Add to that those actively involved in MRT seem to be against it and that is good enough for me.
From what I could tell about today's debate though was that it wasn't about insurance it was (ludicrously) about saying No. No you are not qualified or No the weather is too bad.
Both of which impinge on people's own personal freedoms and in any case is so unenforcable that they might as well be debating having electric fences and swipe card gates to get on the hills.
From what I could tell about today's debate though was that it wasn't about insurance it was (ludicrously) about saying No. No you are not qualified or No the weather is too bad.
Both of which impinge on people's own personal freedoms and in any case is so unenforcable that they might as well be debating having electric fences and swipe card gates to get on the hills.
In reply to GridNorth:
You are welcome to carry on believing it actually belongs to you. I can see how you may have been indoctrinated to think that. I myself have a mortgage, and whilst it may seem very hypocritical, I see it as a necessary evil to provide security for my child. Although I still don't believe we humans should have the arrogance to actually believe we own the planet. I suppose that same arrogance makes it more acceptable to pretend we are actually preserving our beautiful world.
> (In reply to The Big Man) I own the garden that surrounds my house. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't?
You are welcome to carry on believing it actually belongs to you. I can see how you may have been indoctrinated to think that. I myself have a mortgage, and whilst it may seem very hypocritical, I see it as a necessary evil to provide security for my child. Although I still don't believe we humans should have the arrogance to actually believe we own the planet. I suppose that same arrogance makes it more acceptable to pretend we are actually preserving our beautiful world.
In reply to nickyrannoch:
Well said, Genuinely very angry at that idiotic besom's attitude on the radio this morning, unbalanced reporting and steadfastly ignoring anything said by anyone who didn't hold with her own view. I thought Dave Gibson did incredibly well to keep his temper in check, although it sounded like his patience was wearing thin!
Well said, Genuinely very angry at that idiotic besom's attitude on the radio this morning, unbalanced reporting and steadfastly ignoring anything said by anyone who didn't hold with her own view. I thought Dave Gibson did incredibly well to keep his temper in check, although it sounded like his patience was wearing thin!
In reply to Toby S: It's the "machismo"
Clueless does not begin to cover it - and all that promotion of lardarsery in armchairs at the beginning.
I feel for Dave Gibson - he is having to put up with a lot, having a witch hunt year on his watch. The sheer ignorance of the flatlanders' attacks is very irritating.
Clueless does not begin to cover it - and all that promotion of lardarsery in armchairs at the beginning.
I feel for Dave Gibson - he is having to put up with a lot, having a witch hunt year on his watch. The sheer ignorance of the flatlanders' attacks is very irritating.
"Our figures show that around 230,000 people engage in mountaineering activity each month. That equates to nearly three million each year. That means the average climber in Scotland would need to climb every day for 55 years before having an accident"
It seems that it's not that risky after all. When you throw in the health benefits of an active lifestyle, the psychological benefits of escaping every day life and immersing yourself in something completely different, something challenging that gives great satisfaction, there really is no argument for trying to restrict access to the hills (not that it's even possible to do so).
Let's keep up with reasoned responses and this argument will melt away with the snow in the spring.
Mike
It seems that it's not that risky after all. When you throw in the health benefits of an active lifestyle, the psychological benefits of escaping every day life and immersing yourself in something completely different, something challenging that gives great satisfaction, there really is no argument for trying to restrict access to the hills (not that it's even possible to do so).
Let's keep up with reasoned responses and this argument will melt away with the snow in the spring.
Mike
In reply to JohnnyW: And don't forget the time when we were banned, and the economic damage done then.
In reply to cannichoutdoors: What is her interest in this matter? She doesn't have what the lawyers call locus standi, a right to be involved. She no longer holds public office and can't claim to speak for anyone but herself. The cynical view is that she's using this for self-publicity. If she is genuinely concerned, then this is misinformed and misguided.
The correct response to her is "Thank you for your concern, but it's none of your business what we do. We are well aware of the risks, do what we can to mitigate them, and accept that sometimes things go wrong. When they do, it is volunteers from the mountaineering community itself who come to the rescue. We take care of our own. The amount of public money involved in mountain rescue is trivial, and far outweighed by the economic benefit from mountain tourism, and the contribution the MRTs make to society by rescuing random numpties who wander into the hills, and by supporting the official emergency services when an incident occurs more than a few yards from a road. So kindly mind your own business."
The correct response to her is "Thank you for your concern, but it's none of your business what we do. We are well aware of the risks, do what we can to mitigate them, and accept that sometimes things go wrong. When they do, it is volunteers from the mountaineering community itself who come to the rescue. We take care of our own. The amount of public money involved in mountain rescue is trivial, and far outweighed by the economic benefit from mountain tourism, and the contribution the MRTs make to society by rescuing random numpties who wander into the hills, and by supporting the official emergency services when an incident occurs more than a few yards from a road. So kindly mind your own business."
In reply to Howard J:
Her head would explode if someone said that to her. Worth a shot ...
> So kindly mind your own business."
Her head would explode if someone said that to her. Worth a shot ...
In reply to GridNorth:
Try and build a building on it, or build a helicoptor landing pad, or keep buried treasure you find under your lawn. The concept that we actually own anything any more is thin. With intellectual propery, copyrights and restrictions as well you could argue we merely pay for the "use" of everything we own now.
> (In reply to The Big Man) I own the garden that surrounds my house. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't?
Try and build a building on it, or build a helicoptor landing pad, or keep buried treasure you find under your lawn. The concept that we actually own anything any more is thin. With intellectual propery, copyrights and restrictions as well you could argue we merely pay for the "use" of everything we own now.
In reply to Howard J:
I received a really lame response to my complaint to the BBC regarding the misuse of facts on both the last Call Kaye, and Newsnight Scotland. I haven't heard the latest radio show, but I still fuming after the last round!
I wonder, if she truely does care about saving peoples lives in the mountains, then every penny she makes on the back of this crusade of hers through media appearances and articles published, should be donated to MRT's, or towards the running of the courses she claims to be supporting. I suspect this will not be the case...
I received a really lame response to my complaint to the BBC regarding the misuse of facts on both the last Call Kaye, and Newsnight Scotland. I haven't heard the latest radio show, but I still fuming after the last round!
I wonder, if she truely does care about saving peoples lives in the mountains, then every penny she makes on the back of this crusade of hers through media appearances and articles published, should be donated to MRT's, or towards the running of the courses she claims to be supporting. I suspect this will not be the case...
In reply to cannichoutdoors: Nothing should be done. Its the great outdoors and you cannot control it. Mankind cannot control everything, deal with it.
In reply to Mike Pescod:
hear hear
> "Our figures show that around 230,000 people engage in mountaineering activity each month. That equates to nearly three million each year. That means the average climber in Scotland would need to climb every day for 55 years before having an accident"
>
> It seems that it's not that risky after all. When you throw in the health benefits of an active lifestyle, the psychological benefits of escaping every day life and immersing yourself in something completely different, something challenging that gives great satisfaction, there really is no argument for trying to restrict access to the hills (not that it's even possible to do so).
>
> Let's keep up with reasoned responses and this argument will melt away with the snow in the spring.
>
> Mike
>
> It seems that it's not that risky after all. When you throw in the health benefits of an active lifestyle, the psychological benefits of escaping every day life and immersing yourself in something completely different, something challenging that gives great satisfaction, there really is no argument for trying to restrict access to the hills (not that it's even possible to do so).
>
> Let's keep up with reasoned responses and this argument will melt away with the snow in the spring.
>
> Mike
hear hear
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Winter Conditions
This Winter Conditions page gives a summary of what is being climbed at the moment, what is 'in' nick and what the prospects are...
25 Apr
Loading Notifications...