I still think that there's another angle on this. By signing a waiver saying that you can't be held responsible for more than $1000 in damage (or that you can be held responsible to pay up to $1000) you are putting a legal document on file that can be used to make you pay. For example. Person A shoots down person B. Person A refuses to pay. As it is now the 2 people try and work it out and in extremes they may end up in court but is unlikely. With the waiver signed, now person B has a legal document to take to court showing that person A has signed it saying that he can and will be responsible up to $1000.

I think the waiver would promote

1 a quicker threat to take you to court if you don't pay (not having the waiver makes people work together more to resolve the issue outside of court). The waiver can be shown in court to prove liability of person A much more easily than can be shown without the waiver.

2 it could escalate incidents that are not cut and dry (unlike a shoot down) to go to court. With the waiver, now you have a legal document saying that someone is responsible for x amount (to a 'shady' person this could work very well).

On another note.

Are the polls locked by ip? Will the polls allow more than 1 vote? That could sure skew it. I'm still suprised that it's so close. The waiver could be very benefitial to someone who flies planes mainly under $1000. It would be just like insurance!! Jon