Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced? It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges.

For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it?

There's a discussion of the difference between American and German tort law here: https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/how-germany-vie...

The difference is that German law is more systematic and includes a general duty to rescue, but this doesn't result in excessive negligence charges, as awards are much smaller.

> Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced?

Obviously not... If you have no means to communicate you are not required to communicate. I don't know why you'd think otherwise.

> For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it?

This would obviously depend on circumstances and how safe you're able to drive without causing more incidents.

This is also why we have courts, and judges, and juries. They look at the totality of circumstances and arrive at judgement.

> It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges.

It's not anything nefarious like that. US citizens and US law enforcement tend to have an adversarial relationship, unfortunately. Finns generally do not. That law is an expression of expectation for behavior in a civilized society, not an opportunity for prosecutorial promotion, as it might be in the US. One must take reasonable steps to save a drowning child, including calling police. In practice, only the most egregiously callous psychopathic misbehavior is punished. Honestly, who doesn't think that a person shouldn't be in jail who would prefer to film and giggle while a child was drowning? A person like that needs a timeout at least.