5 ms·

But then what is the incentive for anyone to get coverage if they know that any fires will be put out regardless...? Unless the fire service is paired with ins

But then what is the incentive for anyone to get coverage if they know that any fires will be put out regardless...? Unless the fire service is paired with insurance covering the cost of a rebuild? But I don't think the original fire services offered that.

cuteboy19 4y ago
It's similar to how hospitals are required to save you if you are dying but at the same time you are still on the hook for any and all costs incurred
- pifm_guy 4y ago
  It could be... But were the laws that way in 17th century England? I suspect not, because property ownership in England used to be secret - ie. Even the government may not have known who owned land. And if you don't know who owns it, who must pay the bill?
constantcrying 4y ago
There are rational reasons to reduce risk, even if it isn't some game theoretic optimum. One can easily imagine that certain owners either were concerned about an increased risk of fire or high damages in such an event and we're willing to bear the costs. The incentives are very clear, if nobody does it, no fire brigades will exist. (I can also imagine other reasons, e g. membership might have been required by some law or by association.) And in the end every fire which is extinguished is a fire which didn't spread. Just some little aside, today there are people who do firefighting for free. What are the incentives for that?
alex028502 4y ago
> Furthermore, only buildings were insured – neither their contents, nor the lives of their occupants, were covered. Yeah it sounds to me from the article like the insurance was for the rebuild, and the firefighting was something the insurance company did to reduce their payouts. So I imagine if you didn't have insurance, you still were at more risk than if you did, similar to now, because the fire dept isn't going to save everything every time.
ars 4y ago
> But then what is the incentive for anyone to get coverage if they know that any fires will be put out regardless...? The coverage is apparently to pay for damages. It's not fire insurance, it's property insurance, in case of fire.
bee_rider 4y ago
It is covered in the article; the free-rider problem was a problem, in London eventually the fire-brigades appear to have basically convinced the city to buy them because they couldn’t solve it.

cuteboy19 4y ago

It's similar to how hospitals are required to save you if you are dying but at the same time you are still on the hook for any and all costs incurred

pifm_guy 4y ago
It could be... But were the laws that way in 17th century England? I suspect not, because property ownership in England used to be secret - ie. Even the government may not have known who owned land. And if you don't know who owns it, who must pay the bill?

constantcrying 4y ago

There are rational reasons to reduce risk, even if it isn't some game theoretic optimum. One can easily imagine that certain owners either were concerned about an increased risk of fire or high damages in such an event and we're willing to bear the costs. The incentives are very clear, if nobody does it, no fire brigades will exist. (I can also imagine other reasons, e g. membership might have been required by some law or by association.) And in the end every fire which is extinguished is a fire which didn't spread. Just some little aside, today there are people who do firefighting for free. What are the incentives for that?

alex028502 4y ago

> Furthermore, only buildings were insured – neither their contents, nor the lives of their occupants, were covered. Yeah it sounds to me from the article like the insurance was for the rebuild, and the firefighting was something the insurance company did to reduce their payouts. So I imagine if you didn't have insurance, you still were at more risk than if you did, similar to now, because the fire dept isn't going to save everything every time.

ars 4y ago

> But then what is the incentive for anyone to get coverage if they know that any fires will be put out regardless...? The coverage is apparently to pay for damages. It's not fire insurance, it's property insurance, in case of fire.

bee_rider 4y ago

It is covered in the article; the free-rider problem was a problem, in London eventually the fire-brigades appear to have basically convinced the city to buy them because they couldn’t solve it.