4 ms·
The war zone policies often mandated inherently unsafe things (movement only in high-profile armored vehicles, with light security, concentration of protected p
by rdl 8y ago
The war zone policies often mandated inherently unsafe things (movement only in high-profile armored vehicles, with light security, concentration of protected persons in specific places) when those things were actually by that time less safe than alternatives (low profile vehicles, dispersion).
- daveFNbuck 8y agoPresumably these companies would be at a competitive disadvantage to insurance companies that are better at mitigating risk. How are they able to stay in business while requiring unsafe behavior?
- AstralStorm 8y agoUnsafe practice is probably cheaper and clients do not know any better - to them show of security is better than actual security. That said, some unsafe practices as mentioned become the only choice - when you're high profile enough, obscurity will not work.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoThe insurance company is paying for the outcomes, not the security. The security is a condition of their coverage. They don't benefit from the cost savings, but they are hurt by the lack of safety.
- rdl 8y agoYes, the way the insurers do things was essentially due to "principal-agent" issues, difficulties enforcing standards, and some (related) regulatory issues. Still, it led to less safety.