News discussion: enforcement of safe hiking

I’ve talked several times before about the tendency of people to go up mountains appallingly ill-equipped. On Snowdon we passed dozens of people in inappropriate shoes, tight denim trousers, cotton t-shirts, little-to-no insulation, and quite clearly not carrying the sort of daysacks necessary to contain water, food, wet-kit, a torch and other essentials.

It wasn’t just idle moaning either, or me and my usual tendency to be over-prepared and unduly concerned about safety. A few days later someone sent me an article which mentioned the number of rescues made by the local mountain rescue team on Snowdon the very day I was there. The mountain rescue team leader made a pointed remark that had some people carried the minimum of basic equipment, he and his team might not have had to leave their families on New Year’s Eve and venture up the mountain.

People were equally ill-equipped on my Scafell Pike trip. Indeed when we got back to the bottom we saw the sole National Trust employee present trying to very politely discourage a couple with a fairly young child from setting off on the walk in shorts and t-shirt and with no other equipment. I’m not sure if he succeeded.

Anyway, I was reminded of all this when reading an interesting article last week about how the Mayor of Mont Blanc wants to start fining people who set off up the mountain without carrying a list of basic kit that he has published.

I fully sympathise with his position. Mont Blanc claims more lives than either Snowdon or Scafell Pike, and rescues are more frequent, more demanding and more dangerous, so I can only imagine that he is utterly frustrated with having to pluck people out of danger who have got themselves into it entirely through their own lack of preparatation.


Of course, the problem is, as the article mentions, that once you publish a list of minimum kit, people will tend to take that as a being sufficient kit, not minimum necessary kit. His list is open to particular criticism because of lacking things like gloves, but any list would be to a certain extent, because the very act of publishing a list takes responsibility away from individuals and places it on the backs of people who publish the list. This is one of the reasons why the various organisations responsible for mountains in the U.K. take a fairly light touch approach to giving advice or restricting access, despite the fact that you could save a lot of time and effort in rescues by simply placing a knowledgable individual at the bottom of Snowdon saying “no, no, nope, not in those shoes mate” etc. 

It’s hard to know where to draw the line. Despite everything that goes on in the world, I think most westerners tend to think of their home country as relatively safe. Or at least, they assume that there are barriers in place that are in fact not always there. Whether subconsciously or consciously, people think “surely The Man won’t let me do this if it’s dangerous” and of course a lot of the time, in our nanny-state, restrictive, big-Government society (in the U.K. at least) that assumption proves true. There are signs and gates and guards and guides and mandatory training courses and licensing and all sorts of other bullshit to protect the ill-informed and incompetent from the consequences of their ignorance. 

The trouble is that treating people this way actually breeds ignorance and dependence, so when they do decide to bimble up a mountain that is, after all, only a short drive from their campsite and has a tea-room at the bottom, it simply never enters their mind that just because they can start walking up it in shorts, t-shirt and flip-flops doesn’t mean that they should.

What do you think? What can and should be done to keep people safe on mountains? Is publishing a kit list a good idea? What about fining people for not being properly equipped?

3 thoughts on “News discussion: enforcement of safe hiking

  1. No I don’t believe they should… Government involvement in control is never the best answer. People taking personal responsibility and being educated is a much better approach. Number one how would you pay for the enforcement alone? I would totally be opposed to this type of enforcement

  2. Yes, lists are a good idea. If people aren’t explosed to hiking/backpacking and camping (and more and more people aren’t), they don’t know that they can’t simply take a stroll in flip flops up a mountain. Exposing people to the great outdoors, and educating people on how to enjoy it safely may be the only way to ensure protected lands remain protected.

    1. I think you make a good point about knowledge. It’s easy to criticise people for wearing the ‘wrong’ thing but how are they supposed to know what is right. In the UK we have the Duke of Edinburgh scheme which older teenagers often do, and gives them a lot of knowledge of the outdoors, but if people don’t do that and don’t happen to have an outdoors-minded friend to teach them, then there are few opportunities to learn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *