Peter Clinch said:Peewiglet said:Having said that, and since you've raised the point, I do consider it
pretty daft to go out without one
So do you really think that the majority of the nation's walkers are
"pretty daft"? Strikes me as rather strong!
Well I'm not talking about a leisurely bimble down to the woods, but
if people are walking into areas covered by MRTs, when the conditions
(topographical, weather, degree of experience etc i.e. the situation
taken in the round) create a real possiblity of suffering harm if lost
then yes - on the whole I think it's pretty daft not to take one.
I don't see them as essential, but they cost little, weigh little,
take up hardly any space yet have the potential to save a life. My own
view is that it's pretty daft not to take such an easy precaution that
has the potential to be so extremely helpful, assuming, of course,
that the person in question would wish to be rescued if lost. If they
wouldn't want to be rescued then there'd be no point in taking one. I
wouldn't dream of attempting to *tell* anyone else what to carry
though.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:and if I was a member of an MRT
that had to spend ages searching in dangerous conditions for someone
who could have been located easily if they'd had the means of passing
on a GR I'd be pretty annoyed.
Though among the members of MRTs I know personally there doesn't seem to
be any such sentiment, at least that they're readily admitting to..
Quoted message said:Istm that if we expect the volunteers to turn out and help us in times
of crisis then the least we can do is take cheap and simple
precautions to keep the risk to them as low as possible.
Yet it is still the case that I have /never/ heard an MRT member (and I
know a few) state anything along the lines of thinking it "daft" not to
take a GPS with you every time. ISTM that you're making rather big
assumptions about the opinions of a lot of volunteers, who only need to
change their mind to stop being volunteers, after all.
I made no assumption at all about the opinion of volunteers. I said
that *I* would be pretty annoyed in those circumstances.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:I entirely agree with you that it's up to the individual to decide
what to take, but I also feel it's a pointless waste of time to try to
deny that certain readily available and inexpensive modern gizmos
(phone, GPS) can be enormously helpful.
Who is trying to deny any such thing though?
Well you, for a start, seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that on the
occasion that we've been talking about it would have been very helpful
for the blokes in question to have been able to give the MR a grid
reference.
Quoted message said:
The crucial difference is between thinking something may be helpful and
thinking one is morally obliged to carry it. The MRTs don't, AFAICT,
feel it is a case of the latter.
Again, I've not said anything about what members of MRTs think.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:I wonder if this sort of debate went on when maps and compasses were
first introduced? Devil's spawn, etc.... 🙂
At a talk from my neighbour and MRT leader Alfie Ingram I was at about
MRT work, he started with a couple of slides. One was of someone in All
The Right Gear with map and compass and another was a shepherd in tweeds
and wellies with anything he'd need in his pockets. No map, no compass,
no waterproofs, both headed out into similar terrain. Next point was it
was almost always the first sort who needed the services of the MRT.
Maps and compasses are certainly not Must Haves if you know the area
you're in. Typically they are regarded as Must Haves because
recreational walkers are often not intimately acquainted with the area
they are in, but again we must avoid generalising a typical case to all
cases.
Quoted message said:Um... I know you're thinking aloud, but I really don't see how you get
there from the simple observation that the availability of a grid
reference would have been of assistance to the MR team last week!
It's the very thin end of a thick wedge.
No it isn't. You'll be calling me a Nazi next! 🙂
Quoted message said:Higher up you've been saying
it's (IYHO) daft not to take a GPS, next step on from that is it becomes
a widespread feeling amongst Joe Public,
Don't be silly. Joe Public has shown no signs yet of feeling obliged
to adopt my opinions. Joe Public won't have an opinoin on it at all,
as this question is relevant to hardly anyone out there. Walkers who
need to navigate will eventually have an opinion, but I'm not holding
my breath waiting for the walking public to email me with enquiries
about what to think!
Quoted message said:then it becomes a contributory
negligence claim by an insurance company, etc. etc.
People make all sorts of daft claims after watching too much LA Law.
Courts throw them out on a daily basis: this isn't America - we have
judges deciding those issues, not juries.
That's not to say that it couldn't be negligent not to carry one in
appropriate cirucmstances, of course. I'm sure this NG would
collectively have no difficulty in identifying circumstances in which
it would be considered negligent not to take a map and compass. The
GPS is a tool just like the map and compass.
Quoted message said:
We've had in the last few years the spectres of compulsory insurance and
suspension of access rights at night or in bad weather, so it's wrong to
think this sort of idea can't get thrown about in some very high places.
Well people will discuss these ideas, and we're all entitled to
opinions. I've told you mine, but no-one else out there need feel
obliged to adopt it 🙂
Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \
