3 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoSo 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.