"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote

Because I still have to fix the hole the idiot made in the port
side of my boat. Besides, how do you suspend a right with out a
license to take away? Do you issue a piece of paper that says
the person is not permitted to operate a vessel? Do the boating
police then board and say, "We want to check if you have an
operation suspension certificate, please show it to us?"

I've mentioned before, but do you have compulsory third party
insurance in some or all states for certain classes of vessels?

Europe (excepting UK) has, and also the insurers run a common
database to check the 'no claims' history of clients. Anywhere in
Europe you're likely to be asked for your certificate of
insurance, and in many countries, if you have an accident giving
rise to a claim and you're not insured, you've lost your boat!

Leave it to the insurers if they want to give discounts to people
who've taken courses or got qualifications.

Any legs in this as a method of policing behaviour?
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas - N Spain recently
added.

U

"News f2s" wrote

Leave it to the insurers if they want to give discounts to people
who've taken courses or got qualifications.

Any legs in this as a method of policing behavior?

Long legs, very long legs. The insurers now basically have taken over
from the FAA policing pilot proficiency and safety. The FAA still
does the annoying, Mickey mouse, and useless stuff while the insurance
companies determine who gets to fly.

Believe it. We don't want it to come to this in boating. Despite
being a very cautious and excellent (according to everyone else with a
license who has flown with me) pilot, I am now an ex. pilot because of
the insurance climate. Run away insurance could kill boating as
surely as it has killed some branches of medicine and is strangling
aviation.

It's the eternal problem of society, the alternatives to people acting
responsibly and with care for those around them are always ugly and
burdensome, at least those that government is capable of envisioning.
Usually the attempts to curb irresponsible behavior end up costing the
responsible and considerate lots of money, freedom, convenience, and
enjoyment while the irresponsible carry on just as before.

Classic example: City reacts to a few bad incidents in a public park
by closing it at sundown. Now, without large number of law abiding
citizens to set the ambiance, report problems, and just out number the
bad apples, it becomes a jungle of addicts and muggers. City puts in
more police and diverts money from landscaping , taxes go up, real
estate values around it go down, people move out. All this happens
because the city feels that it has to appear to be reacting to a few
well publicized problems that can take place anywhere. Pretty soon,
no one is enjoying the park except the muggers and addicts and there
are even more of them because the city provided them with territory.

--

Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
"News f2s" wrote

Leave it to the insurers if they want to give discounts to
people who've taken courses or got qualifications.

Any legs in this as a method of policing behavior?

Long legs, very long legs. The insurers now basically have
taken over from the FAA policing pilot proficiency and safety.
The FAA still does the annoying, Mickey mouse, and useless stuff
while the insurance companies determine who gets to fly.

Believe it. We don't want it to come to this in boating.

You're implying that third party insurance is very rare in boating
in the states. So, how do aggrieved parties get compensation from
those who create damage? The parallel seems to me to be more in
line with motoring, rather than aviation. Or else there's
something very different about the insurance climates in USA and
Europe, which I don't think is very likely. It's a pretty
competitive market out there.

Your comments seem to prove a combination of things:

First, in USA there are a lot of high value claims against
aviation by third parties.

Second, the high values are either because lots of damage has been
done, or because your litigation climate encourages lots of
marginal claims, or both of these things.

Puzzled.
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas - and Spain too.

Insurance is common. I'm not aware of it being mandatory anywhere but
it never occurred to me to go without it so I didn't check. It is
reasonable in cost and not hard to get. They want to see a survey and
some sailing references so, if I'd said, "I just bought this boat and
I don't know nuttin'.", I might not have gotten the insurance.

I made a comment on jury behavior in another thread. Aviation
judgements go through the roof compared similar injury in other
activities. It's not just the pilots insurance but the costs past on
in the cost of everything else. About 20% of the cost of an airplane
is the manufacturer's liability insurance load.

Here's a classic (and true) story:

Kid gets his license on his 16 th birthday. The parents let him load
up the family plane with three friends his age. The go out and start
buzzing cars up the mountain canyon highways in California. The NTSB
report relates how they were followed across the state by police
reports and the state police were out in cars and other aircraft
looking for them. Finally, they flew into some powerlines that were
not marked because no one ever thought a plane would be down that low
in the canyon.

The mother spent ten years suing Cessna (the builder of the aircraft)
and won!

NTSB reports in this country are not admissible in court. This is
designed to keep the NTSB staff out making aviation safer instead of
being the full time, taxpayer paid, witnesses they would be if the
reports were admitted. The plane type had an occasional fuel flow
vapor interruption issue that was covered in the handbook and the
instructions for dealing with it by turning on a boost pump were
placarded on the panel. Never the less, a number of pilots had
previously gotten over excited when the engine stopped and forgotten
about the instructions in the book and on the panel. The mother's
lawyers just kept hammering away at this issue and these incidents
until he got a jury to believe that the plane hit the wires because it
was gliding down after the engine quit.

Yes, I suspect that things are very different on your side of the
pond.

--

Roger Long

In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote:

Aviation judgements go through the roof compared similar injury in
other activities. It's not just the pilots insurance but the costs
past on in the cost of everything else. About 20% of the cost of an
airplane is the manufacturer's liability insurance load.

Multi-million judgements against manufacturers on 20 year-old planes,
nevermind that the "pilot" had a .15 blood alcohol and he "flew" the
plane into the ground 1 mile short at full power.....

Got so bad that no small (2-4 seat) planes were made commercially in the
US for 15-20 years. Think one of them got back in the biz a couple of
years ago.

I carry full *marine* insurance though I am a programmer for the biz and
know the odds intimately, but I sail a *lot* where there are are 'way
too many lawyers.

I also don't worry about licensing requirements. Passed my FAA written
on the first try with 97%. (at the time, about 60% flunked the first
try.) BUT, it's a bother and won't do anything meaningful.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

"Roger Long" wrote in message
news
Insurance is common. I'm not aware of it being mandatory
anywhere but it never occurred to me to go without it so I
didn't check. It is reasonable in cost and not hard to get.
They want to see a survey and some sailing references so, if I'd
said, "I just bought this boat and I don't know nuttin'.", I
might not have gotten the insurance.

I made a comment on jury behavior in another thread. Aviation
judgements go through the roof compared similar injury in other
activities. It's not just the pilots insurance but the costs
past on in the cost of everything else. About 20% of the cost
of an airplane is the manufacturer's liability insurance load.

Well, the conclusions I'm forming a

1. Aviation insurance effects are not a good model for boat
insurance effects.

2. Third party boat insurance is common in USA, therefore
inexpensive, but not universal.

3. Making third party insurance compulsory for boats over a
certain size/speed may have unwanted side effects, which should be
investigated. Some side effects are the need for policing, and
penalties for infringement. Ingenuity and use of the market place
should deal with these, but there may be other cosiderations which
my limited imagination isn't coping with. Think car insurance?

4. If those side effects don't kill the idea, this does sound
like a sensible alternative to licencing. It deals with boat
damage by third parties. As the market develops, the insurers will
start to differentiate between their clients, implementing cheaper
policies for some groups (licenced sailors? Those who've attended
training courses? Those who don't have claims?).

Indeed, why are licences so often a chosen control method in law?
They don't deal with the unwanted side effects of ignorance or
carelessness.


--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas - and Spain

They don't deal with the unwanted side effects of ignorance or
carelessness.

Because with people being part of the equation those variables can't be
eliminated.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:28:11 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

The FAA still
does the annoying, Mickey mouse, and useless stuff while the insurance
companies determine who gets to fly.

Believe it. We don't want it to come to this in boating.

This has already happened with larger boats (60+), and I'm actually
fine with it. Most large yacht policies specify requirements for
captain and crew.