Quote:
Originally Posted by noelex 77
If there is any association between the recreational, nautical, licensing requirements of a country, and the competence of its citizens, it is a relationship that escapes me.
I would sugest from observing behaviour a case could be made for a negative correlation.
|
In a logical common law country, high
accident and death rates per thousand participants would indicate banning or controlling an activity. Such as smoking. On that basis, horse riding would be banned, especially hunting by horse. Owning
guns in US too.
But strong lobbies protect these activities/interests, and they count for big votes. So, to keep things going (especially the support industries for these activities) lobbies suggest regulation. This, of course, is supported by regulation industries. The
regulations are rarely tested for effect, except in passenger carrying industries.
Of course, once you have a regulation industry, it lobbies for further rules.
Education is much more effective. Let people assess their own risks and decide for themselves. That's the UK approach to sailing, strongly supported by the RYA. You might say, a Darwinian approach. It's very effective, especially in
France and UK, where challenging tides and very variable
weather rapidly sort the skilled and scare the
novice off the
water til they know more.
Different in sunny climes with no tides and good visiblity. This sorting doesn't take place. So
regulations move in to reduce the (rather high)
water sport death rates where
power boats and swimmers mix. But licences are easy to buy, with no tests, in some Mediterrenean countries.
No wonder there's little correlation between regulations and
safety or participation rates.
Linear Mode
Recent Discussions