Stupid Motorist Law? That's great Arizona! (Phoenix, Tucson: insurance, live, bus)

[cdidaho]

Tour bus flips in Arizona flash flood, no one is injured

[shiphead]

lmao. Yes it is great. We even have posted signs and people still want to think they can go through it....

[rambrush]

Then you read this article and discover according to the Bus company the driver did everything right. But the Bus was only 3 months old worth $600,000 dollars and a total loss. Took a rescuers a hour due to how remote it was.
Charges possible in tour bus accident - Kingman Daily Miner - Kingman, Arizona

[Bummer]

Makes sense to me . . .

"The Stupid Motorist Law" was designed, and has become relatively successful, to reduce the burden on taxpayers when drivers arrogantly ignore warnings related to water filled washes.

Why should I, or any taxpayer, be responsible for thousands, possibly hundred of thousands of dollars to rescue some idiot who cannot read.

[shyguylh]

I may be a good thing in such specific situations, but as a society I think we're getting a bit too much into the idea that people should have to pay for risky behavior they engage in. It gets taken to the point that many places forbid you from doing something based SOLELY on that you MIGHT get hurt & you would incur expense on other people for doing such. Taken to an extreme, I think it stifles the ability of people to enjoy an adventurous life--unless of course their insurance carrier covers it or they're rich enough.

Take Lake Patagonia for instance (near Patagonia AZ). When I lived in Tucson I used to love jumping off the rocks at "The Point," as did many other people, but guess what--they forbid it, because someone MIGHT get hurt. People would jump off anyway (I was too scared to do anything but the small ones, they'd do the high ones, I'm too afraid of heights to do that) & someone would look-out and if a park ranger was spotted, they'd yell "ranger" and stop jumping until the ranger left.

On the other hand, in Tucson (where I lived 1996-2006) Sabino Canyon, Milagrosa Canyon & Tanque Verde Falls/Redington Pass were places where I could go & adventure as I pleased, others would jump into the water. Despite occasional accidents occurring (at TVD/RP especially) requiring rescuing, they have never resorted to making it a "regulated" place where you're discouraged from engaging in adventure unless you have strong insurance or a bank account to pay for rescue. They do have the stupid motorist law for driving in washes, yes, but they haven't taken the fun out of those 3 places I mentioned, as they did with Lake Patagonia & other places.

It's something to think about--and the way, I never had to be rescued in any particular scenario.

LRH

[ThatCrazyRedhead]

Originally Posted by Bummer

"The Stupid Motorist Law" was designed, and has become relatively successful, to reduce the burden on taxpayers when drivers arrogantly ignore warnings related to water filled washes.

Why should I, or any taxpayer, be responsible for thousands, possibly hundred of thousands of dollars to rescue some idiot who cannot read.

And not only that, but what about the rescuers who put their lives on the line to save these idiots from their own stupidity? Personally, if it were up to me, I'd let natural selection take its course.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by ThatCrazyRedhead

And not only that, but what about the rescuers who put their lives on the line to save these idiots from their own stupidity? Personally, if it were up to me, I'd let natural selection take its course.

Excellent point.

[smilinpretty]

One time, I was watching the news and there was flood in one of streets in Phoenix, about 3 ft. The reporter was interested in how many people would attempt to drive through it. The water was up to door window and several cars were stuck but others drove through very slowly.

People do stupid things, they pay the consequences.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by larrytxeast

I may be a good thing in such specific situations, but as a society I think we're getting a bit too much into the idea that people should have to pay for risky behavior they engage in. It gets taken to the point that many places forbid you from doing something based SOLELY on that you MIGHT get hurt & you would incur expense on other people for doing such. Taken to an extreme, I think it stifles the ability of people to enjoy an adventurous life--unless of course their insurance carrier covers it or they're rich enough.

Take Lake Patagonia for instance (near Patagonia AZ). When I lived in Tucson I used to love jumping off the rocks at "The Point," as did many other people, but guess what--they forbid it, because someone MIGHT get hurt. People would jump off anyway (I was too scared to do anything but the small ones, they'd do the high ones, I'm too afraid of heights to do that) & someone would look-out and if a park ranger was spotted, they'd yell "ranger" and stop jumping until the ranger left.

On the other hand, in Tucson (where I lived 1996-2006) Sabino Canyon, Milagrosa Canyon & Tanque Verde Falls/Redington Pass were places where I could go & adventure as I pleased, others would jump into the water. Despite occasional accidents occurring (at TVD/RP especially) requiring rescuing, they have never resorted to making it a "regulated" place where you're discouraged from engaging in adventure unless you have strong insurance or a bank account to pay for rescue. They do have the stupid motorist law for driving in washes, yes, but they haven't taken the fun out of those 3 places I mentioned, as they did with Lake Patagonia & other places.

It's something to think about--and the way, I never had to be rescued in any particular scenario.

LRH

Apples to oranges.

[Scottay]

They need another law called the "Stupid Hiker Law" which would hold all those nitwits from Michigan and Wisconsin financially accountable for hiking Camelback without water and sunscreen during mid day in July and subsequently having to get rescued by the fire department helicopter.