Bushwalker fined - activity risks the safety of self/others

[Rob A]

Wheres your thread on this.
If theres one demographic that should routinely be stumping up for the cost of services ....

[kjbeath]

Reading the regulations a little further, I think the charge would fail under clause 22(3)(b):

(3) A person does not commit an offence under this clause: (b) if a plan of management for a park makes provision for the undertaking of an activity in the park, the person undertakes the activity in the park in accordance with the plan of management

Only if the plan of management allows overoptimistic bushwalking. This regulation seems to be written originally to stop more extreme activity, but could apply to almost anything. Maybe I'll complain about the people jogging along the walking trails in Lane Cove NP.

Maybe the police just decided to fine him, but they may have had a lot of evidence of negligence. Lack of planning, maps, experience would be taken into consideration.

[jonnosan]

I guess we are never going to know anything like the full story here (not that anyone ever really does). My biggest concern with completely subjective rules like this (i.e. ones which _everybody_ would break in one way or other, given there is absolutely no qualifier like 'negligent' on risk and safety in the wording) is they are very vulnerable to abuse. e.g. if the rescuers did not think the rescuee was sufficiently grateful at being rescued (which may well be the case if he didn't actually want to be "rescued" at all).

BTW I am not suggesting this is the case here! I know nothing about the case beyond the miniscule details in the press release. I am just pointing out my distaste for rules that are not universally applied.

[mikethepike]

Even as a beginner I understood that things go wrong, people run late, and I had no desire to cause a rescue to occur. I always told my wife when to call the cops (for a day walk it was usually early afternoon on the following day, for multi-day walks it could blow out much further). Like many loved ones -- especially those who don't do hard walking themselves -- I think she struggled with that a little, but she knew the ground rules and always stuck to them. These days I probably give myself even more time for contingencies. And at times I've had injuries occur on my trips -- definitely worse than the one this guy suffered -- but we've never required a rescue.

I agree with this as that is how a lot of us have operated before PLBs became available and still do. Nothing posted here so far has emphatically stated that the guy wasn't carrying a PLB but presumably he wasn't. Whether his actions warrant a fine is I think, an interesting legal aspect. He didn't call for rescue but presumably he lead his friends to understand that if he wasn't out in 3 days, he may need rescue but did he actually instruct them to alert the rescue authorities after that time?

He may have been able to walk out later, he may have been OK with just spuds and naan, but those waiting had no way of knowing and they had no instructions from him as to what they should do.

From the info provided, his food seems totally inadequate for the walk he was undertaking and while you do occasionally read of people walking long distances in self rescue with very little food, the outcomes aren't always pretty. I know of a young solo walker who died in the Grosse Valley during summer 1969/70. The walk was harder (ie his progress was much slower) than he anticipated and he ran out of food and despite the occasional yabby (he left a diary), he died of exhaustion/lack of energy. Many of us still have things to learn but it's a pity that some lessons come at such a high cost.

[Chuck]

Channel 7 Sunrise program, just mentioned this story and they think he should have been charged the cost of the rescue.

Apx 6 months ago we had the head search co-ordinator in central QLD speak at our bushwalk club meeting. I asked him about this subject, when we should call for a rescue.
He told us to never hesitate to call if you think your life is in danger or at great risk of in danger, he told us they have had many rescues that ended up costing more or taken a lot longer to find because, people where hesitating to call at the first opportunity. He told us, they much prefer to find people early before it's to late. He said the government has offered a service and not to be afraid to use it.

As a keen follower of the Blue Mountains Police Rescue page on Facebook, it is clear to me that the words spoken by the the said QLD Search Coordinator are an accurate reflection of how the authorities view such matters generally. Consider that the Blue Mtns Police Rescue complete many, if not hundreds of search and rescue missions each year (it would arguably be the busiest area in the country for these types of operations). Yet an extremely small number result in people being fined or charged (as in sent to Court, not "billed"). It is obvious that this case is extreme. Let's also not forget that the police are there to investigate and determing in there is a case to answer, based on there being sufficient evidence. This guy is entitled to defend the matter in Court if he so desires. No doubt the details released to the public/media are light-on and lacking specific detail. I think the message taken from this should be, if you go out into our National Parks with absolute ignorance or disregard for your own safety, or the safety of others, there is a possibility that legal consequences will follow. The Blue Mtns Police Rescue have acknowledged that despite the best plans being made, accidents can and do occur when well-intentioned people venture into the wilderness. I don't think your average outdoor adventurer should be at all concerned that this is a sign of things to come. In regards to "billing" people who require rescue. I think this concept would be counter-productive to the overall objective, being the safety and wellbeing of the person in distress, and would only make it harder for the authorities to do their jobs. Would you be keen to call for help if you thought it was going to cost you thounsands. Cheers.

[Rob A]

Dont think anyone has suggested negligence. They guy was fined, penalised. But Im not sure what by law, rule regulation hes broken.
Engaged in an activity and therefore fined? He had an accident so he got caught out, but he was engaged in teh activity of bushwalking, which pretty much the entire forum is guilty of.

[colinm]

I'm naturally paranoid, but I see this as fitting into a process of regulatory capture. It goes like this:

1) find a soft target, an obvious idiot, throw a whole bunch of *&%$#! at him and thereby demonstrate that some bushwalkers are idiots.
2) get the mob all foamed up about the cost of S&R to the public ... conveniently forget about (say) the cost of rescuing nearly the entire fleet of 1998 Sydney to Hobart Race ($900,000 BTW,) the cost of sending naval vessels down to the antarctic to pick up that idiotic solo yachtsman a few years back.
3) float the idea of 'cost recovery' charges for S&R
4) conveniently forget that the irreplaceable labour and expertise is *volunteered* ... if they complain too much, sling them some gear or McDonalds vouchers
5) since 'everyone agrees' that the cost of S&R should be recovered, insist upon Insurance (PROFIT!!!!!)
6) insurance requires training (PROFIT!!!!!)
7) training is expensive waste of time
But wait! Professional groups exist to take people out on hikes (PROFIT!!!!!)
9) NPWS enters into agreement with (suitably qualified) 'outdoor activity' groups for them to exclusively provide services

Lest this sound overblown, I've heard that there was a push to insist that everyone who bushwalked be certified to the relevant 'standard.'

[roysta]

Personally I have no way of knowing this guys experience or ability so I cannot judge if he was capable of what he had planned.

Oh I think the potatoes and naan bread part of this tell you where he was at.
There are far more rescue incidents happening in the Blue Mountains zone than we hear about and frankly I think the police decided it was time to make an example of someone.
And, good on them I say.
This was a heavy undertaking and there's no point in trying to blame the media or anyone else for it.

[Lotsafreshair]

Roysta... spot on.

[colinm]

Dont think anyone has suggested negligence. They guy was fined, penalised. But Im not sure what by law, rule regulation hes broken.

It is alleged that he "engaged in any activity that risked the safety of himself and the safety of [unspecified] other persons" which is apparently against this law http://bit.ly/10AuU3Q

he was engaged in teh activity of bushwalking, which pretty much the entire forum is guilty of.

Yes, and the later sections make it a defence that the NPWS plan of management permit the activity. If it were me, I'd take it to court, and I reckon I'd win with costs awarded. He's from Victoria, which means he's really unlikely to contest the charge. That got me suss for a start, wondering why they're doing it ... he wouldn't be the first person they pulled out of a national park who should have known better, and the legislation was intended to stop base jumping and such (although it can be applied to anything except caving and cave-diving ... good lobbying, guys.)

It just feels to me like they're laying down a carefully crafted story - the inclusion of his refusal to have the ankle treated for example - interesting detail ... as if the press report author expected people to object and wanted to shut down any sympathy.

[Allchin09]

Hey,

I was up that way today and spoke to the guys operating the PARKAIR chopper. Apparently he lit a signal fire to help the chopper locate him, but when the chopper came to rescue him, the fire was whipped into a larger one which has since spread into the surrounding area. They were sending the chopper, a few trucks and a whole team in today to ensure that the fire is put out.

I'm not quite sure that the $500 fine will be enough to cover the whole expense of the two day operation!

[gayet]

Are the conspiracy theories about to emerge unfettered?

It is alleged that he "engaged in any activity that risked the safety of himself and the safety of [unspecified] other persons" which is apparently against this law http://bit.ly/10AuU3Q

...... and the later sections make it a defence that the NPWS plan of management permit the activity. If it were me, I'd take it to court, and I reckon I'd win with costs awarded. He's from Victoria, which means he's really unlikely to contest the charge. That got me suss for a start, wondering why they're doing it ... he wouldn't be the first person they pulled out of a national park who should have known better, and the legislation was intended to stop base jumping and such (although it can be applied to anything except caving and cave-diving ... good lobbying, guys.)

Please. Two helicopters were used to find and extract a guy who had failed to make adequate preparation for either his trip or his possible need for assistance. Not the first, and not likely to be the last, but perhaps the authorities are just pushing a bit of responibility back onto the users. He can certainly contest it but its up to him to prove he did not risk others by engaging in said activity. S&R volunteers were at risk in looking for him and in getting him out.

Who is responsible? Someone should be. It was his voluntary act to go in there with no means of contacting anyone to advise of trouble or that he was OK and just taking longer. His friends may well have overreacted and called in the S&R too early, perhaps they are responsible but then they acted on the information they were given - he would be ready for a pick up 3 nights later. He wasn't there. Perhaps they should have given him another night, but then what experience do they have? Not a lot it would seem.

While $500 is pretty paltry considering the actual costs involved, it may convince others to
a) plan and prepare more thoroughly and/or
b) give friends and relatives better instructions on when to call in help and/or
c) ensure some means of contact is available to advise when help is needed or when completion has been delayed or pick up point changed.

It has been suggested that this may deter people from providing better information re plans and routes and timings etc. That I find hard to believe. I think it is more likely to increase the awareness of the need to leave adequate instructions behind, so those waiting have a better, clearer idea of what is expected.



While a PLB could have been carried without financial cost, it is unlikely to have been used, by the information available, as the fellow wasn't in any danger. If he had a Spot or such like he may have been able to communicate something to his friends to advise them of the situation. But then a Spot may not have had satelite connection in the valley.

There are a lot of what if's and if only's but the end result is that his failure to plan and inform, led to friends calling in S&R when it wasn't, aparently, needed. I hope the publicity does make others think a bit harder and take more appropriate steps. I don't think it will discourage too many people who are really interested in being out ther, but it may increase the risk awareness and risk mitigation steps taken.

[colinm]

Are the conspiracy theories about to emerge unfettered?

I attempt to fetter my conspiracy theories by tethering them fairly tightly to observable facts. Please do alert me if the tethering is too elastic.

Please. Two helicopters were used to find and extract a guy who had failed to make adequate preparation for either his trip or his possible need for assistance. Not the first, and not likely to be the last, but perhaps the authorities are just pushing a bit of responibility back onto the users. He can certainly contest it but its up to him to prove he did not risk others by engaging in said activity. S&R volunteers were at risk in looking for him and in getting him out.

Well, no. According to the regulations, an activity provided for in the NPWS plan of management for that park cannot be an activity for the purposes of that regulation under which he was charged.

Who is responsible? Someone should be. It was his voluntary act to go in there with no means of contacting anyone to advise of trouble or that he was OK and just taking longer. His friends may well have overreacted and called in the S&R too early, perhaps they are responsible but then they acted on the information they were given - he would be ready for a pick up 3 nights later. He wasn't there. Perhaps they should have given him another night, but then what experience do they have? Not a lot it would seem.

I don't know ... who is responsible? His primary school teachers (who perhaps should have taught him how to assess risk better) His mum? Me? You?

The question is: who is culpable. The police say he is. I think he's probably not.

While $500 is pretty paltry considering the actual costs involved, it may convince others to
a) plan and prepare more thoroughly and/or
b) give friends and relatives better instructions on when to call in help and/or
c) ensure some means of contact is available to advise when help is needed or when completion has been delayed or pick up point changed.

U.S. experience suggests that the marginal cost of rescue is close to nil, because an S&R squad has to train. An active rescue is also training. As we would (I presume) like a trained S&R squad, the actual cost is nil.

But that's irrelevant, since we do not charge people for the cost of S&R and nor should we. The fine is not a reimbursement of costs, it is a penalty for placing himself and others at risk. Note, the level of risk exposure is not qualified in the regulations - any level of risk is presumably contrary to law, which is contrary to common sense, as (I think) jonnosan points out. The selective enforcement of this regulation means that you, I, anyone is subject to being second-guessed by a desk-jockey or a guy bushwalking in heavy blue overalls with an insignia. I think that's the message that's really intended by this publicity/press release.

It has been suggested that this may deter people from providing better information re plans and routes and timings etc. That I find hard to believe. I think it is more likely to increase the awareness of the need to leave adequate instructions behind, so those waiting have a better, clearer idea of what is expected.

The guy clearly left information as to route and timing. That is not, from what I can glean, the problem. The problem is he was underskilled, possibly underprovisioned, and ignorant.

While a PLB could have been carried without financial cost, it is unlikely to have been used, by the information available, as the fellow wasn't in any danger. If he had a Spot or such like he may have been able to communicate something to his friends to advise them of the situation. But then a Spot may not have had satelite connection in the valley.

He was three days late - a PLB wouldn't have changed the situation. I'd suppose he needed rescuing. Mind you, I can't see how that would relate to his underprovisioning, as I don't know anyone who provisions for double the planned trip.

There are a lot of what if's and if only's but the end result is that his failure to plan and inform, led to friends calling in S&R when it wasn't, aparently, needed. I hope the publicity does make others think a bit harder and take more appropriate steps. I don't think it will discourage too many people who are really interested in being out ther, but it may increase the risk awareness and risk mitigation steps taken.

Firstly, I don't know that rescue wasn't needed. I don't think there's any evidence that he failed to inform. I think (with 20/20 hindsight) he planned badly.

His lack of planning can only be the result of ignorance - he thought he could complete it in three days, clearly he didn't have a hope.

That ignorance would have to be pervasive: he didn't think he needed a PLB (ignorant of the risks) or didn't know he could get one (ignorant of the facility) ... the possibility of a $500 fine could not have had any impact on his planning, since the possibility of his safety didn't ... the fine is not directed at him, it's directed at the rest of us. It's supposed to provide a salutory lesson to the very people who probably don't need it (although I'm sure everyone believes that, and nobody more strongly than those who really do.)

I read it as a message from S&R to the broad public and the bushwalking community. That's why I think it's worth addressing the issue frontally.

[colinm]

Incidentally, if you are ever pulled out, inform the investigators that you were actively engaged in caving - that is, you were headed toward a cave (which, under the regs, includes a rock overhang.) Caving is explicitly excluded from the set of activities which attract a charge of exposure to risk. (Which sort of boggles my mind.)

Have a read of the regs ... lighting a fire in an overhang is illegal, but so is using a stove ... the regulations are bonkers - impossibly broad, completely underdefined, open to so much interpretation you could fly polair-3 through them upside-down.

Nevermind, I'm sure there'll be a push to tighten them up. The tightening will explicitly exclude hunting.

[jungle jim]

ColinM, Hello,

What you are saying makes alot of sense but the Police have been complaining long and hard (over several years) about rescues in the Blue Mountains. You could be right though, the new Government may have an agenda especially now the hunting/safety issue has surfaced and is gaining public support. Don't like the idea of S&R supporting punitive measures - wrong.

[WarrenH]

He was under provisioned with only a kilogram of potatoes?

A kilogram of spuds can feed a large Irish family for a week. If it was a kilogram of Deb, that amount can feed the same family for a month.

There is an agenda here that is testing out something or other. Maybe the police are putting their toe in the water, thinking of scenarios with boofheads and firearms and how badly provisioned some shooters will be when they walk away from their vehicles. Maybe if the bloke from Victoria had been carrying a firearm, he would have been better provisioned and be now eating fresh take-away ... but fined for jumping the gun by 8 weeks.

Some here are taking the media releases as the gospel truth, even the Cop's media release. No one here knows how experienced the guy is, or what he was actually carrying.

If a person needs to be contacted by the police and the police can't contact him, a media release is issued as a matter of course, hoping that the public will spot him and the other media, including the police media, makes up what ever it needs, to fill in the gaps.

One can't help but be cynical, going on track records.

Warren.

[colinm]

I've just read the whole "National Search and Rescue Manual" http://natsar.amsa.gov.au/Manuals/Searc ... /Index.asp which is the document mentioned in the intergovernmental agreement which puts the NSW Police in charge of coordinating land-based searches.

It really has some fascinating stuff in it, and I recommend it if you're ever intending to get navigationally challenged in the bush.

More pertinent to this issue, of the charges, is Chapter 3 Para 90:

3.90. SAR personnel and equipment shall not be placed at risk, nor the mission attempted, unless
lives are known to be at stake and the chances for saving lives are within the capability of
the personnel and equipment available.

According to their own manual, the Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator is responsible for the conduct of the search, and he/she is not permitted to place personnel at risk unless lives are known to be at stake ... so how can the hapless bushwalker be held responsible for a decision in the hands of the SMC? And as the bushwalker's not responsible for the 'other people', then it's a $500 fine for placing himself at risk.

How is that even vaguely reasonable?

Colin.

[jungle jim]

Colin,

$500 infringement notice for “engage in activity that risks the safety of self/others”.

I think the "others" part may refer to people who lead parties into trouble. In this case its as you pointed out, "self" only.

[taswegian]

There's a bit more on the subject.
[url http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/121 ... e/?cs=2452 [/url]

The end comments highlight the issues and no doubt the authorities frustrations when calls for help are made.

Is there much difference between schoolies drunken sprees/"parties " or new years revellers out of control. All require expensive police and often ambulance presence. Should those responsible pay?
Glad I'm not in the decision place.

[andrewbish]

Hey,

I was up that way today and spoke to the guys operating the PARKAIR chopper. Apparently he lit a signal fire to help the chopper locate him, but when the chopper came to rescue him, the fire was whipped into a larger one which has since spread into the surrounding area. They were sending the chopper, a few trucks and a whole team in today to ensure that the fire is put out.

I'm not quite sure that the $500 fine will be enough to cover the whole expense of the two day operation!

Man - this guy couldn't take a trick! The story line reads like an outing by Mr Bean.

On the facts presented the only critical thing he seems to have done wrong is to underestimate the trip length - but even that is not clear. I agree with Gayet's comments re a Spot device.

Needs more details...How many days would the trip take normally? Has he hiked much/in the area/solo before? Is his diet usually based primarily on Carbohydrates? Does his choice of diet indicate a cultural aspect and was that a factor in the police actions? (Just saying). Food aside was he otherwise adequately equipped? Was he capable of and intending to complete the trip?

[michael_p]

More on the cost of the rescue from today's SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bushwalkers-rescue-likely-to-come-with-10000-price-tag-20121231-2c2q2.html

[WarrenH]

Can those in the know on this thread, say why the four canyoners who were under provisioned and needed rescuing on the 27th Dec, why they were not fined $500 each?

Only one space blanket between them. No second rope and they were navigationally challenged.

Something isn't holding true.

Warren.

[Nuts]

I guess it Is ok on here to 'call an idiot an idiot'?

Based on those first few 'facts' seems a bit harsh to me. The whole thing seemed odd, i can't recall someone being fined.. it obviously has happened but he didn't even ask for help? Sounds like the search was underway very quickly, most likely based on what the guys friends told S&R.. I'd imagine police were most peeved by the signal fire, was that lit on seeing searchers looking for him though?

Maybe given the proximity to the city, number of rescues in that particular park, beacons and insurance should be a requirement?

[colinm]

Oh, you guys are covering this here too ... viewtopic.php?f=36&t=11963

The last time the BM rescue service charged someone with this offence it was a base jumper in (IIRC) August.

Regarding cost recovery: 1998 Sydney-Hobart yacht race marine rescue cost $900,000 ... we getting that back too, or is setting out into the teeth of a gale to race a yacht not considered as culpable as hiking with spuds? The teams have to train, live recovery is also training, the marginal cost of actual recovery over training is nil.

The regulations are quite poorly written, as written any hiker could be charged. Selective enforcement is of concern.

Regarding risk to rescuers: this is explicitly the RMC's decision to make. The manual states that he should not expose searchers to risk unless warranted.

Finally, and most importantly: the guy is being portrayed as ignorant, and may well have been. Fines will have no impact on ignorance. I think this is a first toe in the water to test the public reaction to charging for rescue, requiring qualifications of bushwalkers using NPs, and finally regulatory capture by the outdoor activities industry.

[hikingdude]

Finally, and most importantly: the guy is being portrayed as ignorant, and may well have been. Fines will have no impact on ignorance. I think this is a first toe in the water to test the public reaction to charging for rescue, requiring qualifications of bushwalkers using NPs, and finally regulatory capture by the outdoor activities industry.

I think you're right. The constant degradation of liberty in modern times is alarming - by both government and business.

If you tried to convince someone 20 years ago of the draconian regulations imposed on outdoor pursuits they'd tell you 'you're dreaming'.

Watch this space!

[DaveNoble]

I think it is premature for us (the bushwalking community) to pass judgement without knowing the full facts. We do not know how experienced the walker was and what gear he was carrying besides his food. We do not know his intended route.

But often bushwalkers after the excess of Christmas dinner do tend to skimp a bit on food (I can remember one extended walk starting on Boxing day when one of the party took very little food and seemed to do fine)

Some bushwalkers do take "mono diets" - I know some who have taken just cashew nuts or just muesli (for week long or longer walks).

Newnes to the Culoul Range via the Wolgan and Colo Rivers is a fairly standard 3 day trip for experienced bushwalkers ( as per bushwalking club programs) - I think this is probably his intended route (Culoul Range = Colo Heights to many people).

The walker did tell responsible people his route and his time frame - and they did alert the authorities when he had not turned up.

We do not know where in the Wolgan Valley he was when rescued - he may have realised he could not do his intended route in the time and be on his way back?

I once saw a helicopter spend an hour or so trying to locate a canyoner bitten by a snake in Wollangambe Canyon (a PLB had been activated) - and I can remember suggesting that his party should have lit a signal fire to attract attention (I only found out after making this suggestion that it is a "no no" for choppers - their rotor's downdraft can cause problems). So lighting a signal fire would have been a logical thing to do (if not a wise thing to do).

Wollemi National Park was open during the period in question (others have beed rescued when they got into difficulties when they have ventured into parks that have been closed. Have they been fined? I don't know)

Often - it is the very experienced and capable walkers that can get away with carrying very little gear and minimal food.

Dave

[colinm]

I think it is premature for us (the bushwalking community) to pass judgement without knowing the full facts. We do not know how experienced the walker was and what gear he was carrying besides his food. We do not know his intended route.

You're absolutely right - we don't know enough to form a reasonable judgement. I'm wrong to conclude he's a clown, based only on the press release.

We can surmise that because he's from Victoria he won't contest the charge in court, and so we will never know what informed the decision to prefer the charge. We know that the officer who decided to bring the charge was in a position to know that too. We can also see in the selection of facts in the press release a possible agenda.

Wollemi National Park was open during the period in question (others have beed rescued when they got into difficulties when they have ventured into parks that have been closed. Have they been fined? I don't know)

Moreover, it was open to bushwalking, as provided for in the park plan of management, and this alone is a complete defence to the charges.

[davidm]

Not going to pass judgement on the guy. I don't know what he was thinking, how prepared he was or any other details.

One thing that annoys me though is the media reporting costs of $10000+. As if the tax payer would have saved that money if he had not been rescued. No, the people involved with the rescue would still be getting their wages. The helicopter would likely still had been in use for training.
From a financial point of view, an unnecessary rescue is not a big deal. It's good training for the proper rescues. I've spoken to a fire fighter about why they waste so much money and resources rescuing a *&%$#! cat from up a tree for example. He said it's good training for proper emergencies.

[colinm]

On the question of cost recovery, I found these posts informative:

http://blog.oplopanax.ca/2012/12/opinio ... -recovery/
http://blog.oplopanax.ca/2011/11/on-blaming-the-victim/

[davidm]

The idea of fining/billing for this kind of thing reminds me of an incident that happened to me at home a few years ago. I woke up to my house mate's shouting and ran out to find was full of smoke.It turned out an electric blanket had malfunctioned, and her mattress was smouldering. No fire, just heaps of smoke coming out of it.
My first reaction was to call the fire brigade, but then I recalled hearing that there was a $500 call out fee. So I decided to try and remove the mattress by myself. I figured I could drag it outside and just chuck a bucket of water on it. Fortunately after a few attempts the smoke was too much. I couldn't get near the bed for long enough to get a grip on it and I reluctantly called 000. A truck turned up within a few minutes, and the moment the fire fighters lifted the mattress and some oxygen got in under it, it burst into flames.
If that had of just been me the house probably would have been lost, lives would have been in serious danger, and it would have cost everyone a lot more money. Turns out there is no call out fee anyway.
Point of the story - a real life example of how the threat of a fine/charge can cause people to make REALLY stupid decisions which ultimately put people in more risk.