"J. Clarke" wrote

Why does it cost more to pull somebody off the side of one mountain than
off the side of another? Are you just opposed to downhill skiing in
general or only if the guy starts by jumping out of a helicopter?

Accessibility for one. The second is the chances of something happening in
the first place. Some places are easier and less risky to ski, just not as
challenging for the daredevil. They often go to places more prone to
avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper terrain, etc.




When you get on a commercial plane, the risk has been minimized as
compared to say, doing aerobatics over Mt. Everest.

So what? And where would you rather someone do aerobatics, over the
hospital so that when they crash they'll crash conveniently to an
emergency room?

There are plenty of places to do aerobatics where it is easier to clean up
the mistake than the top of Everest. They are often done over rivers,
lakes, farm fields. Consult your local FBO for approved locations.



Sure there is always
a risk walking out the front door in the morning and we all pay for some
protection. We all don't do the extreme stuff though. Want to jump your
bike over the Grand Canyon? Go right ahead, just don't expect me to pay
if you go splat.

So what percentage of the cost of rescues in the past decade has been
rescue of people doing things of which you personally do not approve?

Don't know, don't care, I just don't think I should have to pay for it.
If you ski in a resort, you pay an admission and the resort pays for
security coverage. They employ ski patrols. Seems simple and fair to me.



When an individual sets out for a stunt, they know the risk and should
be willing to pay if they get into trouble.

What, you think that solo circumnavigators don't take a lot of precautions
to avoid the **** happens moment?

Sure they do, but if things do go wrong, pay the price. Why should I have
to pay?




So you would require huge taxes on participants in the many, many
transoceanic races? Or huge taxes on anybody delivering a boat more than
75 miles from shore? I'm sorry, but you really don't have a clue what
people do with boats.

No tax needed, just insurance coverage. Everyone participating shares in
the risk. Who pays for race track cleanup after a crash? Who "should" pay
for it.




Sport
fishing is done within 50 to 75 miles of shore.

So you're OK with sport fishing but you'd want immense fees charged for
engaging in commercial fishing more than 75 miles from shore? Like for
example you'd have charged huge fees to that boat the rescued her?

NO fee, just insurance. Don't want to buy insurance? No problem, just put
of a $500,000 bond that will be returned when you get back to port. If you
don't think we should pay for our own risk, why not eliminate all car
insurance. All cost will be borne by the state.





I'm sorry, Ed, but going to sea is risky whether you're aboard a 25 footer
or a half million ton tanker. All precautions are in vain when Poseidon
hurls his trident. That's just the way it is. And so far solo
circumnavigators don't have a particularly bad record in that regard. Not
even teenaged ones.

That is true, there is risk. Ships do pay for taxes, insurance, and travel
in the shipping lanes. They help with economic growth of the world economy
also. The risk of a tanker is far less than a 40' sailboat though. I
don't care what kind of chances you want to take, just don't expect me to
open my wallet. Going to an amusement park entails some risk too, but the
park takes precaution and pays for (from your ticket price) the crews needed
to rescue you. Why should you not do the same?