Safety is the new Sanctity?
Ekk and I have been doing a lot of musing lately about safety regulations and insurance in various historical recreation and mundane venues. Ekk is Merganser's representative to a new 18th century naval and maritime reenactors' group in Northeastern North America (which sounds a lot more impressive than it is, though there are 40-something groups and vessels represented). Between the wrangling about designing new and boat-specific legislation and the latest SCA wank in which the cost of insurance is being cited as a driving reason to implement new and mandatory fees, we've been understandably discussing the usefulness and philosophies behind these things.
I mentioned that in this day and age, safety is the only societal pop-religion to which we all can claim to subscribe (including dramatic arguments about its precise definition). Pay attention to this sometime, especially in activities that traditionally carry some noticeable threat of risk - we swear by it, we live our lives by the precepts designed to ensure its maximum effect in our daily activities, people start arguments in public forums for these activities by calling each other unsafe. And then there's the question of safety protocols sufficient to get insurance...
Ekk hit it first: If Safety is the new Sanctity, Insurance is the new incarnation of the Indulgence. It's a piece of paper designed to give the bearer peace of mind. It wards off invisible negative consequences and lets the bearer *prove* he or she is "safe"(holy?) enough to play with others of that sect. (That's been a major argument in the new boat group, even though we're all boat folk - are we safe enough to play with each other, let alone infidels others?) The owner pays a certain sum and gets a certain level of coverage, and they may never see it actually come into use and know whether it was effective enough or not.
The SCA group insurance is spectacularly useless in real-life application and is thus a perfect example - SCAdians love to throw its name around when Pay-to-Play or new weapons/armor regs or new activity guidelines come out, but what does it actually get Joe SCAdian? As a couple members of my home barony, Stonemarche, found out a few years ago, all it gets is peace of mind... but only for a very select few, when actually put into effect. The SCA's group insurance is *only* for the Board of Directors, so they can't get sued personally, and for *non-SCAdian* site owners, to cover site damage. If you're a member of the SCA, and hold an event on your land, and some drunk jerk decides it would be fun to see if he could flush all his empty cans down your toilet, the SCA's insurance will leave you wet & soppy. You're not covered, as an average member. As I said, a couple folks from Stonemarche found this out the hard way a couple years ago when the baronial pavilion blew down and sent two people to the ER in their attempts to save SCA property. The SCA insurance didn't cover so much as sending a card, let alone any medical bills (which is an incorrectly-believed justification for its existence I hear often). What does the SCA group insurance get us? It opens doors and convinces non-SCAdian site owners we're safe enough a risk for them to let us use their facilities, and 90% of the time it stays at that level - a magic piece of paper that proves its bearer is pure enough to enter.
Interesting thoughts, anyways.
I mentioned that in this day and age, safety is the only societal pop-religion to which we all can claim to subscribe (including dramatic arguments about its precise definition). Pay attention to this sometime, especially in activities that traditionally carry some noticeable threat of risk - we swear by it, we live our lives by the precepts designed to ensure its maximum effect in our daily activities, people start arguments in public forums for these activities by calling each other unsafe. And then there's the question of safety protocols sufficient to get insurance...
Ekk hit it first: If Safety is the new Sanctity, Insurance is the new incarnation of the Indulgence. It's a piece of paper designed to give the bearer peace of mind. It wards off invisible negative consequences and lets the bearer *prove* he or she is "safe"(holy?) enough to play with others of that sect. (That's been a major argument in the new boat group, even though we're all boat folk - are we safe enough to play with each other, let alone infidels others?) The owner pays a certain sum and gets a certain level of coverage, and they may never see it actually come into use and know whether it was effective enough or not.
The SCA group insurance is spectacularly useless in real-life application and is thus a perfect example - SCAdians love to throw its name around when Pay-to-Play or new weapons/armor regs or new activity guidelines come out, but what does it actually get Joe SCAdian? As a couple members of my home barony, Stonemarche, found out a few years ago, all it gets is peace of mind... but only for a very select few, when actually put into effect. The SCA's group insurance is *only* for the Board of Directors, so they can't get sued personally, and for *non-SCAdian* site owners, to cover site damage. If you're a member of the SCA, and hold an event on your land, and some drunk jerk decides it would be fun to see if he could flush all his empty cans down your toilet, the SCA's insurance will leave you wet & soppy. You're not covered, as an average member. As I said, a couple folks from Stonemarche found this out the hard way a couple years ago when the baronial pavilion blew down and sent two people to the ER in their attempts to save SCA property. The SCA insurance didn't cover so much as sending a card, let alone any medical bills (which is an incorrectly-believed justification for its existence I hear often). What does the SCA group insurance get us? It opens doors and convinces non-SCAdian site owners we're safe enough a risk for them to let us use their facilities, and 90% of the time it stays at that level - a magic piece of paper that proves its bearer is pure enough to enter.
Interesting thoughts, anyways.