Still haven't covered the hot air balloon case :) One could ride in a hot air balloon under improper or stupid conditions (like in high winds over an ocean) where there is no functioning method of slowing down, yet the vehicle is *meant* for transport of human beings.
Another example would be a fighter jet that's strayed too far from a carrier.
I clearly played too much Nomic when I was younger.
And how about vehicles designed for the occupant to eject? Not sure if those exist outside of science fiction.
I didn't say that the method had to be available at all times. In fact it is really only important when the vehicle nears hard objects. As far as ejection goes, I'd argue that then the ejection vehicle comes under the claim, and that the container vehicle is no longer covered post-ejection.
A proposed counter-example. You are the captain of a space ark. Your job is to drop your cargo boat of cloned embryos or whatever off at a planet. You do not fit in the boat. You must stay alive until after the boat is dropped, but the ark does not have fuel to slow down. Out of compassion, the ark designers have outfitted it to keep you alive, healthy, and happy for the rest of your natural life.
This vehicle is meant to transport you without damage, yet does not need a functioning method of slowing down.
The space ark is meant to transport both the boat and the human. Both are necessary, and both are incorporated in its design. If the human dies, the boat doesn't make it. Maybe there's a big red button to launch the boat.
Transportation does not imply destination. Put one of Shroedinger's decaying atom devices (the kind that may or may not have killed the cat) on your head and board on a bus without picking a destination. How far does the bus need to take you before it qualifies as safely transporting you?
Discussion (6)
Still haven't covered the hot air balloon case :) One could ride in a hot air balloon under improper or stupid conditions (like in high winds over an ocean) where there is no functioning method of slowing down, yet the vehicle is *meant* for transport of human beings.
Another example would be a fighter jet that's strayed too far from a carrier.
I clearly played too much Nomic when I was younger.
And how about vehicles designed for the occupant to eject? Not sure if those exist outside of science fiction.
I didn't say that the method had to be available at all times. In fact it is really only important when the vehicle nears hard objects. As far as ejection goes, I'd argue that then the ejection vehicle comes under the claim, and that the container vehicle is no longer covered post-ejection.
Got me there. "Needs", not "has".
A proposed counter-example. You are the captain of a space ark. Your job is to drop your cargo boat of cloned embryos or whatever off at a planet. You do not fit in the boat. You must stay alive until after the boat is dropped, but the ark does not have fuel to slow down. Out of compassion, the ark designers have outfitted it to keep you alive, healthy, and happy for the rest of your natural life.
This vehicle is meant to transport you without damage, yet does not need a functioning method of slowing down.
Since it fails to deliver you unharmed to the destination, I don't think it qualifies as meant to transport you without damage.
The space ark is meant to transport both the boat and the human. Both are necessary, and both are incorporated in its design. If the human dies, the boat doesn't make it. Maybe there's a big red button to launch the boat.
Transportation does not imply destination. Put one of Shroedinger's decaying atom devices (the kind that may or may not have killed the cat) on your head and board on a bus without picking a destination. How far does the bus need to take you before it qualifies as safely transporting you?