I wasn't just talking about recreational aviation, but I'm fairly certain some of the changes to our rules have been as a result of legal action against RAAus. I may be wrong here, but wasn't there a case about a Sting where there were 2 deaths after an engine failure, and one (or more) of the surviving partners took legal action against RAAus. I would suggest that may be at least partly responsible for the reason that we now have have an approval process for everything. Someone else is checking everything we do, because no one wants to be sued for letting us hurt oursleves. I understand that sometimes a lawyer may be necessary to help you when you have genuinely been caused harm by someone's negligence, but I see quite a few that really (in my opinion) should never have made it to a courtroom. Consider also, that lawyers have made the law so complex, that only a specialist can negotiate it. I don't consider that good for anyone but the legal profession. Summary: I believe that many of our over restrictive rules both in Rec flying and day to day life are the result of successful lawsuits by people, who in my opinion, should not have been successful. This is the reason I place the blame for their success in milking the system and the creation of new laws to prevent others from initiating similar action, squarely at the feet of the lawyers who push for the new precedent in the quest for a dollar, and the magistrates who award the payouts.