Not sure how I feel about this.
I heard on the radio today that France are either passing or hoping to pass a law that means that if a citizen decides to travel to an area deemed dangerous by the government and the government subsequently need to bail them out of trouble, repariate or rescue them, then those individuals could come back and find that they are handed a bill for the expenses incurred.
On the one side I can see their point of view:
it's tax-payers money that is potentially being spent on getting a person out of a sticky situation that they willingly exposed themselves to.
On the other hand it potentially sets a precedent whereby a state could influence which places citizens can visit with a threat of fines should something go wrong, even if common sense dicates that their should be no problems...
Seems inoccuous enough at present but once in place this kind of law could make travelling a lot harder: no insurance etc...
Personally, if this were to be in effect, I'd prefer a simple disclaimer whereby a traveller agrees to pay a nominal fee (€5000?) should somehting go very wrong: big enough to dissuade silliness, small enough not to make travel an overly elitist pursuit.
Views?
__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)
|