[Jonny_C]

This topic came up recently for an incident out west on a ski hill.

In this case it involves an ice fisherman on Lake Scugog.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01 ... 39278.html

I'm not so sure that this kind of precedent is wise.

I'm thinking about highways today, because our highways in Northeastern Ontario were closed this morning due to treacherous conditions. Often the police simply warn motorists to stay off the highways but leave the highways open. Now if someone, for whatever reason, travels such a highway after the warning, are they liable to be charged all the itemized costs involved in an accident?

Being liable for costs should certainly be a deterrent for people thinking about doing risky things, but the ice fisherman's point might also be valid. Could there be cases where people would be reluctant to call 911 because they might be charged thousands of dollars, putting their lives even further in danger, or causing their deaths?

[Yogi]

It's about time that people are held accountable. He fucked up-cuz he knew better- so now he should pay up!

Two days before Robbenscheuten’s mishap on the ice, the Kawartha Conservation warned residents to stay off frozen waterways, stating that “all local rivers, streams and lakes should be considered extremely dangerous.”

But Robbescheuten, who has fished on Lake Scugog for 30 years, maintains he was safe until... fog rolled in as darkness fell. He grew disoriented on his way back to shore, then fell through the ice and got stuck in mud and water up to his waist.

[OnTheIce]

Looks good on him.

More people that do this should be handed a bill.

If they're worried about calling 911 to avoid being charged, perhaps they won't venture and take risk when warned next time.

Also note that it's been raining for the last 2 days and it's +12 and this a-hole is back on the ice today.

[QBC]

Yogi.....people aren't responsible for their own actions. (Just look at all those who should be in prison that are either walking free or are staying at psych wards) They should have had at least 20 Conservation officers there to make sure that even the most stupid couldn't hurt themselves. Accountability? That has gone the way of the Dodo bird.

[commanderkai]

I'd have to agree that they had plenty of justification to charge him. Same goes with those moronic skiers who don't obey warnings about some slopes being off limits. If the authorities are saying "Don't ski/fish/drive/stay in this area due to dangerous conditions", be it an evacuation order due to a hurricane, or anything like that, people should realize that if they need to be rescued due to their stubbornness or stupidity, they will be charged for it.

Johnny_C Johnny_C:

I'm thinking about highways today, because our highways in Northeastern Ontario were closed this morning due to treacherous conditions. Often the police simply warn motorists to stay off the highways but leave the highways open. Now if someone, for whatever reason, travels such a highway after the warning, are they liable to be charged all the itemized costs involved in an accident?

However, in this situation, if the authorities are leaving highways open, and don't close down and clearly indicate the risk and danger, then they should not be charged.
However, if authorities leave highways open, I do think they shouldn't be charged.

[andyt]

Certainly North Shore Search and Rescue is dead set against charging people for rescue, because they worry people will delay even further before calling them. They wouldn't even accept the 10k that the ski hill is planning to charge one of our numbnuts for needing rescue.

[Lemmy]

Not sure why anyone would want to fish on Scugog, which is the province's largest open sewer. Not sure why anyone would need a rescue, since the lake's only waist deep and is so thick with Lindsay's effluent that you can stand on it even when it isn't frozen.

[Jonny_C]

I'm assuming I'll get jumped on for this, but aside from the main question (to charge or not to charge) I'm wondering about this bill:

$1:

Robbescheuten’s bill breaks down as follows:

Three fire trucks for two hours: $3,000.00

One standby fire truck for 1.5 hours: $750.00

Fifteen firefighters for two hours: $966.30

Fourteen firefighters for 1.5 hours: $676.48

How much would the firefighters have cost the city if they were just back at the fire station polishing their trucks and waiting on standby?

What was the standby fire truck doing for $750?

Why involve four fire trucks and 29 firefighters to rescue one man stuck at the shore of a lake?

[andyt]

Very good point.

[Jonny_C]

andyt andyt:

Very good point.

Well it seems punitive, unless there are good reasons for it.

[BartSimpson]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

andyt andyt:

Very good point.

Well it seems punitive, unless there are good reasons for it.

If punitive is the reason then I'm good with it.

[Jonny_C]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If punitive is the reason then I'm good with it.

Boy, if we punished everybody to the max for doing stupid things, we'd all be dirt poor.

And if we stayed home and avoided all risks, we'd be great candidates for heart attacks and we'd be charged extra at the hospital because we're too fat.

[Jonny_C]

A CBC "As It Happens" interview with Neil Robbescheuten, the rescued fisherman:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/As+It+Ha ... 330817880/

You can pick up the interview starting at about 16:20 of the podcast.

Mr. R. says he will not pay the fine and outlines why.

Four police cruisers and an ambulance also responded to the call.