Why is it not banned?
About 10 to 20 die world wide in about a population of 1000 or so active jumpers. It can be done relatively safely but the group isn't big enough to regulate effectively and most BASE jumpers are hostile to anyone mentioning the idea.
It is in the land of the free
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/may/22/did-rules...
[2] http://www.nerverush.com/base-jumping-locations-plan-jump/
For the age group 25-44 we have 269.8 male deaths per 100k, vs 114.8 female ones - or a total of 192.0 per 100k regardless of gender, or nearly ~2 per 1000.
Looking at http://base-jumping.eu/base-jumping-fatality-list/ , which might be a bit dated, I see 26 fatalities listed for 2015 world wide. I tried to find how many base jumpers exist, and ended up on a forum where it was speculated upon. Perhaps 3000? In which case we have a mortality of ~9 per thousand , no age group discrimination.
So.. from that perhaps naive collection I see a 4-5x increased risk of dying if being a base jumper compared to just being average. However one can ponder if it would help fight depression and such. And, looking at death rates for 45+ , cancer then becoming a major killer with obesity certainly being a factor. How many lives does the fitness regime of base jumping save?
Perhaps this is a confounding factor: as Spooky23 notes in a sibling comment, "Cars are engineered to protect all but the most reckless and negligent from death" - but indeed, who else would choose BASE but the reckless and the self-proclaimed immortals?
It's not like poeple don't understand the risk - especially by the time they get to the point where they can actually do it. What about all the other 'extreme' sports where death and/or serious injury is a possible outcome?
Because someone one has to clean up the mess. And it wastes the coroners time.
I'm not saying I agree that it should be banned, but those seem like two obvious angles.
Maybe instead you get them contributing to a local SAR organization. Maybe they have to get insurance. Or something else more constructive and less ham-fisted than just making it illegal.
Why is banning stuff so high on everyone's list of solutions to problems that don't really affect them?
Perhaps because:
> And it wastes the coroners time.
means it does affect them (the tax payers)?
Personally, I think as few things as possible should be banned/restricted. If things directly impact other peoples lives, then sure, but if its indirect or minimal, then perhaps not. Its a difficult balance though (but in general, I'm in the "the less government involvement in the peoples lives the better" camp).
Okay sure. but...
> About 10 to 20 die world wide in about a population of 1000 or so active jumpers.
How is 10-20 peoples worth of coronor time worldwide an appreciable number for taxpayers. Furthermore is it even remotely comparable to the cost of trying to enforce a ban, which would presumably also be funded by tax payers.
My point is more that you've at least thought about it a little, unlike the OP of this thread.
Cleanup the mess is a valid point, but only justifies posting a bond at most.
[1] I'm obviously not 100% sure about this last one but it seems likely.
The Antenna part of BASE must be getting harder to achieve. When I worked in the radio and TV broadcast industry we had problems with BASE jumpers climbing masts at remote unmanned sites, but physical security is always being improved. Also, you wouldn't want to try climbing onto a live high power mast radiator, you would be vaporized.
On the other hand, in many states it is banned and illegal to sign a waiver stating you understand the risks, then buy and consume unpasteurized milk.
Twice in one week without supplemental oxygen:
http://www.kilianjornet.cat/en/blog/kilian-jornet-summits-ev...
Anyway, it's a good economic resource for those countries.
Some people are comfortable taking greater risks than others. We should be free to make that choice without threat of legal harassment.