Re: [Paddlewise] Kayaking safety

Dan wrote;

>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:

(Large SNIP)

I realise that Dr. Wilde did not address the specific aspect of training
increasing risk taking in the article on my web site and that is why I
suggested that interested parties also read Dr. Wilde's book which is
published in its entirety on his personal web site.

The important aspect of his theory is, " 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."
This is precisely what Robert's example provides. I.e. the skilled paddlers
telling the novice that he/she can increase risk because of the added
perceived safety of knowing how to roll.

In his book Dr. Wilde uses two large scale and separate studies of driver
education to
show that one's increased belief in personal skills increases risk taking
out of proportion to real risk.  In both studies it was shown that students
successfully completing driver's education courses had higher accident
rates than those without any formal training. Wilde's premise is that the
target risk is higher than the real risk, that  people increase risk taking
out of proportion to their real safety and that their increased perception
of safety from both skills and technical devices is not consistent with the
resultant real safety. He provides many other examples. He concludes that
only improved attitudes toward risk can result in real increases in safety.

Consider the difference between the comment Robert heard and this one. "If
you learn to roll you will be safer should you ever accidentally get in
over your head."

The difference is that Robert's example revealed using rolling to enable
increased risk as a priority rather than a method to reduce risk and
increase safety. My comment focuses on being prepared for a mistake.
Clearly there are no
absolutes in risk assessment but there are rather clearly defined
attitudes. There is the attitude that "I am better therefor I can take more
chances" and there is "I am better therefor I have an added margin for
error. This does not mean that one should not "raise the bar" but it does
put the challenge in proper perspective when safety is the object.

Consider this. Imagine real safety (as opposed to perceived safety) graphed
as a smooth curve of risk increasing with the square of wind velocity as a
base. Once the waves begin to break the level of risk no longer increases
smoothly but jumps up a notch because breaking waves increase the chance of
capsize. Now the curve continues up smoothly until one capsizes at which
point the
risk  jumps up another notch because the level of risk is greater when the
boat is upside down. If the paddler does a wet exit his risk jumps again
and so on until he is separated from his boat at which point he is really
in trouble. In other words risk is does not increase in a smooth uniform
fashion but in great leaps depending upon circumstances.

Are people are aware of the magnitude of risk as conditions worsen? How
many paddlers know that the wind force increases with the square of
velocity and that wave force increases with the fourth power of wave speed
and that the stability of a boat at the crest of a breaking wave can
diminish almost to zero? How many know how to relate that to their
experience? I don't know but, based on my experience speaking to paddlers
at symposiums, I suspect very few do.



Robert said,

>     People like me who don't roll get criticised all the time and I
> understand the reasons for that criticism.  On the other hand, I have a
> pretty good grasp of what conditions I can handle and what I can't.  Risk
> assessment is something I do before I start out into rough conditions.
To
> date I've had good luck finding an alternate route if my intended one
seems
> too risky.  Also, I'm always prepared to "sit it out" if necessary.  My
> wife would prefer my coming home late to my not coming home at all--and I
> agree with her.

So long as the level of real risk is below Robert's level of perceived risk
he is much safer than the person who can roll and is keen to take on more
challenges that exceed his perceived risk. Robert right side up is already
a leg up over another person
with poorer judgement upside down.

I disagree with Dave's comment that this discussion is not consistent with
target risk theory. Target risk has to do with real risk, perceived risk
and how we balance the benefits of an activity and the dangers. Our skills
are part of that equation. Dr. Wilde does not suggest that people not learn
proper skills or that safety devices be abandoned. What he suggests is that
attitudes need modification for there to be a net increase in safety.

Frank makes a valid point about rescue "Play" but Robert's example was not
so much about play as attitudes toward risk. Richard's observations over
his many years of instructing are also consistent with Dr. Wilde's premise.
Robert's example is classic in that it reveals a skilled person suggesting
to a novice paddler that learning to roll and increased risk go hand in
hand when in reality risk should lag behind learning to roll or not
increase at all. Even an experienced paddler like Dave takes risks that he
shouldn't (nice to have you with us Dave :-)) Obviously we haven't learned
yet what comes first and that, is Dr. Wilde's point. .

Cheers,
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/




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