Hacker News Reader

Comment by nerdponx | Hacker News Reader

I didn't realize this was even an assertion that people made at all.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. People at the time must have known that fires in cities were extremely dangerous because they could spread over a great area. It's logical that insurers would want to work together to prevent all fires, purely out of self-interest to protect their insured properties, and then sue the pants off negligent and/or uninsured property owners after each near-miss.

The paper in TFA says as much, but it's weird to me that people would uncritically accept the proposed narrative in the first place.

View on HN

> It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Consider the following:

* The first Fire Brigade, in Rome, was established by someone who would insist on buying your building before extinguishing the fire [1]

* In the present day, you can live in an unincorporated area, decline fire protection offers from the county and from your insurer, and the fire brigade won't come out if you have a fire [2]

* The article provides 11 different sources for the apparently incorrect claim London's insurance fire brigades circa-1700 let uninsured buildings burn.

Personally I find it quite easy to understand why people might believe the incorrect claim.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus#Rise_t... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna39516346

The Rome thing may or may not be true.

It’s quite possible it is true, but we are a long way from any direct evidence that it was generally the case.

Half the things we know about famous Romans come from writings that were attacking or making fun of them, and some are pretty clearly satire or jokes.

> The paper in TFA says as much, but it's weird to me that people would uncritically accept the proposed narrative in the first place.

That's the point though. In spite of the logical and practical evaluation, there was evidence from multiple, trusted sources that said otherwise. And history is full of people doing dumb things and making bad decisions, so why not this one too?

Also, it's self-affirming - "Look at us! We've got problems, but at least we know well enough to fight fires when there is one, despite money problems"

But then what is the incentive for anyone to get coverage if they know that any fires will be put out regardless...?

Unless the fire service is paired with insurance covering the cost of a rebuild? But I don't think the original fire services offered that.

It's similar to how hospitals are required to save you if you are dying but at the same time you are still on the hook for any and all costs incurred

It could be... But were the laws that way in 17th century England?

I suspect not, because property ownership in England used to be secret - ie. Even the government may not have known who owned land. And if you don't know who owns it, who must pay the bill?

There are rational reasons to reduce risk, even if it isn't some game theoretic optimum. One can easily imagine that certain owners either were concerned about an increased risk of fire or high damages in such an event and we're willing to bear the costs.

The incentives are very clear, if nobody does it, no fire brigades will exist. (I can also imagine other reasons, e g. membership might have been required by some law or by association.) And in the end every fire which is extinguished is a fire which didn't spread.

Just some little aside, today there are people who do firefighting for free. What are the incentives for that?

> Furthermore, only buildings were insured – neither their contents, nor the lives of their occupants, were covered.

Yeah it sounds to me from the article like the insurance was for the rebuild, and the firefighting was something the insurance company did to reduce their payouts.

So I imagine if you didn't have insurance, you still were at more risk than if you did, similar to now, because the fire dept isn't going to save everything every time.

> But then what is the incentive for anyone to get coverage if they know that any fires will be put out regardless...?

The coverage is apparently to pay for damages. It's not fire insurance, it's property insurance, in case of fire.

It is covered in the article; the free-rider problem was a problem, in London eventually the fire-brigades appear to have basically convinced the city to buy them because they couldn’t solve it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com