Re: [Paddlewise] Kayaking safety

John,

I have read the Wilde article, and as far as I can tell it does *not*
provide support for Robert Perkins' suspicions regarding safety. To be
specific, Bob wrote: 

	"I have a nagging feeling that a great many kayakers 
	believe that they are better prepared and safer than 
	they actually are.  Are my suspicions justified?"

Citing from the article, Wilde explains the theory of risk homeostatsis
as follows:

	"The level of accident risk at which the net benefit 
	is expected to maximize is called the target level 
	of risk in recognition of the realization that people 
	do not try to minimize risk ..., but instead attempt 
	to optimize it. ... Risk homeostasis theory posits 
	that people at any moment of time compare the amount 
	of risk they perceive with their target level of
	risk and will adjust their behaviour to attempt to 
	eliminate any discrepancies between the two." 

Wilde goes on to provide evidence that people do indeed adjust their
behavior in the manner described above. As the theory suggests, it is
optimal to adjust one's behavior in response to rising skills. If one is
behaving optimally according to this approach, a primary benefit of
improving your skills is that it allows you to extend your range of
experiences without increasing your risk of death.  You can explore the
open coast or undertake long crossings without having any greater risk
than you had when you were less skilled and paddled in more benign
conditions. I think that it would be quite irrational to learn how to
roll, brace, etc., simply so that you can paddle in protected waters
with a reduced risk of death.

Bob's point was quite a separate one.  He was not asking whether
kayakers expose themselves to riskier conditions as their skills
improve. (Obviously they do, but again this is optimal.)  Rather, he was
asking whether they increase their exposure out of proportion with their
improvement in skills, thereby *exceeding* their target level of risk. 
Perhaps I missed it, but I did not see anything in the article that
implies that individuals consistently exceed their target level of
risk.  If individuals are successful at achieving their target level of
risk, then Bob's "suspicions" are not justified.  
       
Do more experienced paddlers exceed their target level of risk? I really
don't know. Certainly there are some who do.  However this is not an
easy issue to resolve empirically. Even if one were to show that more
skilled paddlers have a higher death rate, this would not necessarily
imply that there is a tendency for such paddlers to exceed their target
level of risk, since it may be that the risk target for the population
of skilled paddlers is higher, on average, than for the population of
less skilled paddlers. (The level of skill development may be a function
of the target risk level.) 

In short, I don't see anything in the risk homeostasis literature that
provides justification for the notion that skill development leads to an
increased tendency to underestimate risk.  Skilled paddlers expose
themselves to greater objective dangers.  However this is rational so
long as there isn't a tendency on the part of such paddlers to exceed
their target level of risk.  Of course the type of instruction that you
favor will help to prevent this, and nothing that I have said above in
any way diminishes the importance of such instruction. 

Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************