I suppose then, that if you
are driving downtown, and are killed by a rogue driver who causes an
accident, that you are guilty of putting yourself in harm's way.

Yes... moreso than the person who is sitting in their front yard and
gets run over by a rogue driver. If you are driving downtown, you have
accepted certain risks of driving (including rogue drivers) that the guy
in his front yard has not.

Such an odd place to draw your line of justice.

Justice is not involved.

The onus for responsibility is on the person presenting the harm.

Of course. But participating in a risky activity (such as hunting) is a
tacit acceptance of possible harm (such as being shot) whereas while
strolling in the park, one has not accepted that risk (real though it
may be).

Ironically, the FAA takes an even more relaxed view of the hazard to
innocents. They allow solo flight by student pilots, with every bit of
endangerment to people on the ground, if not more, that a fully certificated
pilot presents, but protect potential passengers by prohibiting their
presence.

They don't allow solo flight until the student has demonstrated
sufficient ability, and the risk to persons on the ground is less than
the risk to passengers in the plane.

Either you overestimate the harm to people on the ground
from airplanes, or you underestimate the harm to people on the shore from
boats.

Perhaps. I have no statistics to back me up. I would be interested in
them if anybody does have them available.

In any case, I don't believe that the requirement for proper training should
be decided based on the degree of risk. Either there is risk to innocents
or there is not. If there is, proper training should be required.

There is always risk to innocents, even flying a kite is dangerous to
some extent. Not to consider the extent of risk is ludicrous.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.