3 ms·

Owning a car comes with the obligation to get insurance in most jurisdiction, so it's not that outlandish to require insurance for these types of things too. T

by arp242 3y ago

Owning a car comes with the obligation to get insurance in most jurisdiction, so it's not that outlandish to require insurance for these types of things too. The question is what exactly "huge risks" are; I've been hiking on my own and sometimes didn't see anyone for days; is that a "huge risk" or just a "risk"? Do I need an evaluation to see how "prepared" I was? In the end everyone takes some amount of "risk" at times, so how do you define "exceptional" risk and codify that in law? I'm certainly not looking forward to a future where everything that could possibly perhaps be risky are regulated to the microscopic level. And if we look at the overall costs, are we really talking about that much money? Is it unreasonable for the public to carry these costs? Personally I'd say yes. But is it enough money to act upon, considering any legislation will also restrict normal people? A lot less sure about that.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Owning a car comes with the obligation to get insurance in most jurisdiction, so it's not that outlandish to require insurance for these types of things Arizon’s stupid motorist law “states that any motorist who becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway may be charged for the cost of their rescue” [1]. This transfer of liability is simpler than insurance requirements. And it doesn’t strike me as callous when dealing with wealthy people voluntarily engaging in risky activities within a jurisdiction that has the capability to save them. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law
- arp242 3y ago
  This is extremely narrowly defined and doesn't really translate to generic "huge risks". This is really the problem, because you can narrowly define specific situations like "drive around barricade to enter a flooded road" or "go on a deep-sea dive in an uncertified experimental sub built by some cowboys", but the list is basically infinite so it's not really practical to codify all of those situations, except those that occur frequently enough that it's a structural issue (which I presume is the case with this specific law).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > is extremely narrowly defined It should be. Recreational risks with a reasonably high probability of peril seems to fit the bill. Perhaps limited to cases where the life is actually saved, and capped when reasonable safety precautions are taken to avoid disincentivising one from calling for help.
    - arp242 3y ago
      So how would you codify "recreational risks with a reasonably high probability of peril" in law? Or "capped when reasonable safety precautions are taken" for that matter? I don't see how that's workable and seems far too broad and vague.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > how would you codify "recreational risks with a reasonably high probability of peril" in law Leave it to the agencies who need to actually conduct the rescues. The APA’s public notice requirements should ensure it’s predictable.
tim333 3y ago
Car insurance is mostly to cover damage to other people/cars if you run into them. Emergency services being called to say clear burning wrecks off the motorway is still mostly on the taxpayer.

by arp242 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Owning a car comes with the obligation to get insurance in most jurisdiction, so it's not that outlandish to require insurance for these types of things Arizon’s stupid motorist law “states that any motorist who becomes stranded after driving around barricades to enter a flooded stretch of roadway may be charged for the cost of their rescue” [1]. This transfer of liability is simpler than insurance requirements. And it doesn’t strike me as callous when dealing with wealthy people voluntarily engaging in risky activities within a jurisdiction that has the capability to save them. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid_motorist_law

arp242 3y ago
This is extremely narrowly defined and doesn't really translate to generic "huge risks". This is really the problem, because you can narrowly define specific situations like "drive around barricade to enter a flooded road" or "go on a deep-sea dive in an uncertified experimental sub built by some cowboys", but the list is basically infinite so it's not really practical to codify all of those situations, except those that occur frequently enough that it's a structural issue (which I presume is the case with this specific law).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > is extremely narrowly defined It should be. Recreational risks with a reasonably high probability of peril seems to fit the bill. Perhaps limited to cases where the life is actually saved, and capped when reasonable safety precautions are taken to avoid disincentivising one from calling for help.
  - arp242 3y ago
    So how would you codify "recreational risks with a reasonably high probability of peril" in law? Or "capped when reasonable safety precautions are taken" for that matter? I don't see how that's workable and seems far too broad and vague.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > how would you codify "recreational risks with a reasonably high probability of peril" in law Leave it to the agencies who need to actually conduct the rescues. The APA’s public notice requirements should ensure it’s predictable.

tim333 3y ago

Car insurance is mostly to cover damage to other people/cars if you run into them. Emergency services being called to say clear burning wrecks off the motorway is still mostly on the taxpayer.