"Jose" wrote in message
m...
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.

I'm not talking about "the guy in his front yard". I'm talking about the
pedestrian "walking right next to your car".

Such an odd place to draw your line of justice.

Justice is not involved.

Of course it is. Without the concept of "justice", there is no concept of
"innocent".

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).

A person strolling in the park had better be prepared for the risk of being
shot. Heck, you don't even need to go out of your house to run the risk of
being shot.

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.

Of course it is. But according to you, the people on the ground are
innocent while the passengers in the plane are not. And according to you,
they should thus be granted more protection.

In the case of solo flight, the FAA grants the *passengers* the greater
degree of protection.

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

I suspect that even if you count only the handful of large vessels (ferries
seem to be a common type) that plow into a pier killing a dozen or so people
at a time, that number alone still exceeds the people on the ground killed
by aviation accidents.

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

"Fighting" kites notwithstanding, flying a kite isn't going to kill someone.
It seems to me that, if a person is going to do something that has a genuine
risk of killing someone -- anyone, whether they are a participant or not --
then that person should be required to undergo proper training and
certification.

Now, I will grant that boating isn't close to being the only example of this
not being the reality. There's not even a legal requirement for proper
training to own a gun, never mind for other hazardous activities such as
using a chainsaw, riding a Segway, or operating a bulldozer. But at least
in the case of boating, the activity is VERY comparable to flying in a
number of ways, including the risk exposure to the general public (which is
relatively small in both activities).

Pete