Should there be mandatory liability insurance for boats?

[atmartin]

Most of the ex-pat Germans I met in Central America gave this exact kind of bureaucratic thinking as their reason for leaving.

I don't know if it's the residue of hegelian idealism or what, but I suppose us Americans have our own delusions with regards to "risk management" and other nonsense.

Also, to stave off some of the more vitriolic remarks: I and several other posters expressing the 'anarchic' anti-insurance viewpoint are 'responsible' people and carry insurance. That doesn't mean we have to like it or think that people with limited or no insurance are the scum of the earth.

I'd like to call many of the folks who strive for complete coverage and risk-reduction "sissies" or "cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat", but that's just plain rude!

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by rabbi

There is definately no licensing requirement for kiteboarding. But schools don't rent to someone who can't show proof of competence. Whatever they consider proof or competence s another story.



The only sport I can think of that requires a license is anything that flies. If you consider stuff like paragliding a sport.











Bad example. You could pick any hotel with decent security measures no matter what nationality.

A hotel is like a gated community. Can you go there and tell the guard to show you the private beach justbecause you want to see it?

Typically yes, any hotel should let me take a look at their facilities before I make a booking for multiple guests. I used to travel weekly for work all over the world and I've never seen as strict of security as in that Egyptian resort near Marsa Alam. Of course the security was entirely useless since I could easily evade if I were so motivated.

You're right regarding the licensing requirement for kiteboarding, I stand correct. That being said I've never seen a German kiteboarder without a kiteschein and yet few Americans that have one.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by John_Trusty

I agree with your proposal, Montanan, but I expect a chorus of people to follow with talk of over-regulation, individual liberty, freedom-of-the-seas, and too many laws already.

^^
This

Originally Posted by John_Trusty

The problem I have with that talk is what we're seeing in USVI - the cleanup of those freedom-loving people's boats is happening, but at my expense as a tax-payer.

Usually I would agree with this, however, everyone chipping in means that everyone can enjoy these freedoms regardless of their economic situation, so I'm happy to make an exception in this case.

With that being said, it shouldn't be abused.



Added.
It's like drivers license, it's easy and inexpensive in the US, it has to be that way, because everyone has the right to travel. It is not a privilege but a right. Now that only truly works if everyone can afford a license, if you make it too expensive and too complicated everyone can no longer afford one, yeah, technically everyone still has the right to travel sure, but in reality that's no longer the case, because a vast portion of the population would no longer have the economic means necessary to get a license, turning it into a class issue.

We do not need more laws rules and regulations, we need less. The way things are heading we will soon need a walking license and a bicycle license, a hard hat, and a wear garbage man uniform.

[rabbi]

I'm not into a fight. Just discussing. Mostly harmless

And only because I'm a little bit bored as its winter here. Next week I'll be in sunny Spain on the boat instead

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It’s a cost-benefit decision based on your risk assessment.

The dilemma is that I make this cost benefit decision not only for myself but also for everyone else around. Liability is a mixture of my own risks and the risk of everybody else.
If I decide to go without beefy insurance I do so at the risk of others.


And whenever someone does something that affects others in a negative way this automatically has moral implications.
I am not saying that this moral consideration is the driving factor behind my decisions, but its something to be considered. Not to take care of large material damage if I sink a millionairs boat but for bodily injuries which are just as costly.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I have no idea where you’re pulling your numbers. Unless they are based on actual data, they are simple speculation or anecdote.

I though I mentioned that I just pulled something out of my head.
You can change them at will but the overall picture will stay the same: Insured folks can satisfy the vast majority of claims while uninsured can't unless they are wealthy.



Actually this is a non-issue where I go boating. In the western med insurance is de-facto mandatory, unless one can stay on the hook forever and never visit any marinas or boatyards and never clear into Italy or Greece.

Seems Europe is inhabited by Sissies.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by atmartin

Also, to stave off some of the more vitriolic remarks: I and several other posters expressing the 'anarchic' anti-insurance viewpoint are 'responsible' people and carry insurance. That doesn't mean we have to like it or think that people with limited or no insurance are the scum of the earth.

I'd like to call many of the folks who strive for complete coverage and risk-reduction "sissies" or "cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat", but that's just plain rude!

OK, and I have to admit that I don't have insurance for everything.
For example my own house and household belongings are uninsured, even thought its worth way more than my boat. I am self insured by my own decision.


Sissie is a nice name. Maybe for the next boat. Ohno, that one will be called "Chicken too"

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

You're right regarding the licensing requirement for kiteboarding, I stand correct. That being said I've never seen a German kiteboarder without a kiteschein and yet few Americans that have one.

Its just like scuba diving.
No license required officially but no scuba shop will refill my bottles as I don't have a license and never had lessons. Luckily I had my own compressor on board.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rabbi

I'm not into a fight. Just discussing. Mostly harmless

And only because I'm a little bit bored as its winter here. Next week I'll be in sunny Spain on the boat instead

Good stuff. Me too . Some people get pretty worked up, and I didn’t want this to go that way.

Originally Posted by rabbi

The dilemma is that I make this cost benefit decision not only for myself but also for everyone else around. Liability is a mixture of my own risks and the risk of everybody else.
If I decide to go without beefy insurance I do so at the risk of others.

I’m not an actuarial, nor an insurance seller, but I’m pretty sure insurance cost is calculated based on the risk assessment of the individual circumstance (or as a like group).

It’s obviously true that what I do affects those around me, and this helps create the risk environment, but this is true for ALL actions in a community. There’s no end to that rabbit hole, and like I say, that is not how risk is assessed from an insurance standpoint.

Originally Posted by rabbi

And whenever someone does something that affects others in a negative way this automatically has moral implications.

Again, if you want to head down that rabbit hole you quickly come to the conclusion that anyone living in a community that takes any risk is bad, and should be outlawed. And since every act involves some risk, well, lets just say I’d rather not go there...

Originally Posted by rabbi

I though I mentioned that I just pulled something out of my head.
You can change them at will but the overall picture will stay the same: Insured folks can satisfy the vast majority of claims while uninsured can't unless they are wealthy.

OK, I say 90% of people with net values over $5Million never pay any damages or take and responsibility for the harm they cause b/c they are rich enough to game the legal system in their favour. This leaves their victims having to pick up the tab.

Originally Posted by rabbi

Actually this is a non-issue where I go boating. In the western med insurance is de-facto mandatory, unless one can stay on the hook forever and never visit any marinas or boatyards and never clear into Italy or Greece.

It’s increasingly the same in North America. Although I’ve yet to encounter any marina that demanded liability insurance for short term dockage, people are reporting this happens here. And the last two yacht clubs I belonged to demanded insurance. My current one only recommends it.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m not an actuarial, nor an insurance seller, but I’m pretty sure insurance cost is calculated based on the risk assessment of the individual circumstance (or as a like group).

It’s obviously true that what I do affects those around me, and this helps create the risk environment, but this is true for ALL actions in a community. There’s no end to that rabbit hole, and like I say, that is not how risk is assessed from an insurance standpoint.

But once you reach a point where everyone is insured for liability there is no significant risk for the individual anymore. All damage is shared amongst the insured population.
OK, somehow sonds like socialism....


But I think this approach is only valid for liability. Personally I feel that any individual has to make good any problem caused, to the outmost extend possible.
Since most people's funds are limited the only way to do this is by buying liability insurance.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Again, if you want to head down that rabbit hole you quickly come to the conclusion that anyone living in a community that takes any risk is bad, and should be outlawed. And since every act involves some risk, well, lets just say I’d rather not go there...

I guess that is the reason why personal liability insurance while not mandatory is a defacto-standard over here. Everyone has it as soon as he gets his first job, before the first job one is part of the family insurance.

And its cheap and available because there is some regulation to standardize the minimum terms & conditions and beyond that there is a lot of competition between insurance companies.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

OK, I say 90% of people with net values over $5Million never pay any damages or take and responsibility for the harm they cause b/c they are rich enough to game the legal system in their favour. This leaves their victims having to pick up the tab.

Which is one reason to have hull insurance convering for uninsured / non-paying counterparts.

The insurance will pay for any uncovered damage, but will also make sure that the high net-worth individual pays them back.
I am sure that Allianz Global has way more legal manpower than most millionairs, and they are certainly not willing to let anyone off the hook just because he is rich.
It may be different if the rich person is a customer of Allianz as well, or if it happens in legislations where legal cost & success rate just doesn't make it worthwhile. Like "never sue a French in France".

[rabbi]

No more replies in over five minutes. So off to bed with me!

and for tomorrow I am considering an anchor thread to kill the boredom

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rabbi

But once you reach a point where everyone is insured for liability there is no significant risk for the individual anymore. All damage is shared amongst the insured population.
OK, somehow sonds like socialism....

I gotta get back to doing productive things, but this has been fun Rabbi. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Would be a lot more fun over a few beers in a cockpit somewhere, but we do what we can.

I think this takes us back to the start of this thread: Should there be mandatory liability insurance for boats? My response continues to be tentatively yes, but only if it is mandated and controlled for the good of all. IOW, essentially remove it from the private sphere and make it a public good.

But I also say once again, all this is a solution in search of a problem. Liability insurance is cheap b/c the risk is low. Boating, as shown by actual data publicly available, is very safe. Despite some of the doom posts here, there isn’t an epidemic of boaters (either poor or rich) screwing other boaters.

Sure it happens, and there are probably some areas where the risk IS high. But making general public policy based on aberration is always bad policy. It’s the proverbial sledgehammer to kill a fly scenario.

This is why I say if someone deems their risk to be high, then deal with it. They shouldn’t generalize this so as to impose their needs on everyone.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I gotta get back to doing productive things, but this has been fun Rabbi. Thanks for the interesting discussion. Would be a lot more fun over a few beers in a cockpit somewhere, but we do what we can.

The first round of beer is on me!

[markpierce]

Liability insurance is for those who have assets to lose. People without any insurance probably don't have assets to lose and are thus a hazard to the harmed.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I always love all the moralizing that comes with these discussions. "People with insurance are moral, those without are immoral." No shades of grey allowed.

Some talk about “judgement proof” folk, implying they are more likely to be irresponsible and damage other people’s property. How about rich folk who can afford to use the legal system to destroy those with less financial resources. I say this person is just as likely to behave irresponsibly b/c they know they can get away with it.

And for those who claim liability insurance = moral or responsible behaviour; what happens when you are the cause of damage that exceeds your purchased liability limit? Are you now irresponsible? Immoral? Bah...

Being wealthy doesn’t make you responsible, and being poor doesn’t make you irresponsible. Stop with all the baby talk.

Insurance is bought by the individual to mitigate the risk they see. If you perceive great risk from uninsured poor people, or I would say rich people who can game the legal system, then act accordingly. Buy extra insurance, or go somewhere where the risk is lower.

And if you’re really serious about making the waterways safer, then you should support a stringent and firmly-enforced boat operators license system. Make it graduated the way most motor vehicle licenses are now. Have it set a high bar for skills. This would legislate safety — at a much higher cost, and for no very good reason (boating is already very safe!).

You are adding the moral aspect.

This discussion is should insurance be required, so understanding who is likely to have insurance and what the ramifications are if someone doesn't have insurance is important to include. Judgement proof individuals are far more common than some would like to suggest and the cost of their incidents does generally get passe onto those who do carry insurance.

Yes, there are limits. If my boat gets out of control, rams a $400million super yacht and sinks it, it's probably beyond what my policy would cover but it's such a rare situation that it's probably not worth fixing.

On the other hand, the odds of an old broken down boat sinking and needing removal is quite common.

[CareKnot]

First I want to remind everyone that this is CRUISERS forum. I'll revisit this point in a minute.

This thread got me to thinking. Experience dictates that most cruising mishaps are relatively infrequent whether power or sail and tend to be minor and mitigated. So, putting 'Acts of God' aside for a minute (because liability insurance will NEVER reduce taxes and there is little provable in the way of individual liability) I wondered what the stats say. Just how much of an issue or a non-issue is liability insurance to the cruising community?

From what I have gathered the vast majority of collisions are found in two major categories. Commercial marine enterprises (where insurance is already required, so it is excluded from these stats) and recreational boating. Far and away, the lion's share of recreational boaters collisions belong to 'go-fast' power boats and personal watercraft (the weekend enthusiast); and of those about a third are alcohol or drug related.

Most cruising captains I know spend a lot of time reading the regs, learning their vessel, the weather, the local environment and honing their skills. I know many who drink. I don't know many that drink at the helm or recklessly go fast. Most all of them have a plan including a number of contingencies and they tend to stick to it as fortune allows.

What I read about 'go-fast' boat drivers is not encouraging. The vast majority of risk that some wish to spread across the entire cruising community mostly resides in a very select group of boaters; the 'weekend warriors' that want to blow off some steam and tear up the water whether drunk or sober.

I compiled a graphic of serious 'Recreational Boat' accidents investigated by the US Coast Guard in 2016 by boat type. Open Motorboats and Personal Watercraft led the list by a very wide margin. While I could not find stats on fault, anecdotal accounts had the go-fast boats hitting other boats and stationary objects in every account I read. So when you read the other boat type categories, I would suggest that they were likely victims rather than the cause of the collision. Also keep in mind that reviewing stats for earlier years, it was easy to see when DUI law began to be enforced more vigorously.

Some of you should spend a little time here: US Coast Guard -
MANUFACTURERS | RECREATIONAL BOATERS
BOATING SAFETY PARTNERS

The takeaway is that some want to include the entire Cruising Community under this Mandatory Liability Insurance scam. Put more personally, you want to get into my pocket - due to a situation mainly caused by others outside the cruising community. This may be where the disconnect resides in this lively debate.

If you want to argue that high speed watercraft pose a danger to cruisers, that might best be mitigated by operator certification requirements and liability insurance, I might see your point. After all, they are the ones operating boats like Type A drivers on the way home from the bar.

On the other hand, if you want to paint the entire cruising community with that very broad brush you seem to favor and support your hysteria with anecdote and allegory, you won't get very far with me. Just saying.

[Mike OReilly]

Phillip, you are absolutely correct.

There is an excellent publicly available USCG database that includes the last 12 years of accident data for the USA. I have referenced it often, and I encourage everyone to spend the time poking around it:

https://bard.knightpoint.systems/Pub...e/Report1.aspx

It is searchable in many forms, including accident type, cause, and type of vessel. You are absolutely correct. Overwhelmingly the accidents involve "Open motorboat”, "Personal watercraft” and "Cabin motorboat”. “Auxiliary sailboat comes in a very distant fourth.

This is why I have repeated numerous times here that this demand for mandatory insurance is a solution in search of a problem. The data shows it. Insurance companies know it. The price of liability insurance proves it.

There is no epidemic of cruising level boats causing great harm to others. Aberrant or unusual events aside, there is no big problem to solve here.