[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by troutman

Sure we can. If an insurer won't cover a risky adventure because it is too dangerous, than the adventurer should post a bond. If you want to feed your ego, then be prepared to pay when it all goes wrong.


IMO, it is selfish for anyone with dependants to participate in high risk sports. It is also selfish to expect taxpayers to underwrite your follies.

http://outside.away.com/peaks/features/transcript.html

How do climbers square the risk with the reward when embarking on these expeditions?

In fact, statistically the risk is closer to one in 33 [risk of dying]. And I don't square the risk. I mean, climbing is an irrational act. It makes no sense. It defies logic. It's something I'm compelled to do. I'm not sure why. I'm at a loss to explain it in any way that makes any sense.

I've written two books--Eiger Dreams and Into the Wild--that deal with this question of risk and why people do it. And I'm sure I've failed to explain it in both those books. I've devoted many months, years, in those books to try to explain this question and I haven't succeeded. I don't think I ever will. [Jon Krakauer]

Well who decides what is sufficiently risky to require insurance?
If I go hinking in the woods, that is an inherently risky venture. I'm doing it simply for my own enjoyment, and I'm really not adding anything to the world by doing it. Should I have to post a bond to go hiking through K-Country in case I get lost, or fall down a cliff?

See that's my point. Just about everything anyone does has some risk to it. Who's going to be in charge of deciding what is risky enough that someone should have to post a bond in case they get into trouble, and who's doing things that are covered in the day to day activities of the coast guard, or RCMP, or STARS?