We've had lots of discussion about safety, but I keep thinking about the question that John Winters raised some months ago. Paraphrasing roughly, does having gear and training lead kayakers to take risks that they would otherwise avoid. Yesterday I participated in a club trip on a coastal river--blackwater, flat, modest current, no unavoidable hazards. The distance to be covered was too short for such benign conditions, so folks paddled slowly and two of the guys started playing, doing things like rolls and sculling braces. Later, I heard one of them say to one of the women in the group that if she would learn to roll and brace, she'd lose her fear of capsizing and be able to handle tougher situations. I've heard this line of argument before; it's a fairly standard one. However, I found myself wondering if either of those guys, who obviously enjoy rolling, could roll consistently in heavy chop or in the reaction waves thrown up by heavy wakes on a narrow, winding river. Yesterday I was the only one actually wearing a PFD (we were on a fairly shallow river), two paddled without spray skirts, and at least two did not have spare paddles. We did encounter some boat wakes large enough to surf. People like me who don't roll get criticized 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. 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? Bob -------------------------------------------------- Robert C. Perkins, Ph.D. Associate Dean for Research and Planning Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC 28311 910-630-7037 rperkins_at_methodist.edu *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Bob wrote; (SNIP) . > Yesterday I participated in a club trip on a coastal river--blackwater, >flat, modest current, no unavoidable hazards. The distance to be covered >was too short for such benign conditions, so folks paddled slowly and two >of the guys started playing, doing things like rolls and sculling braces. >Later, I heard one of them say to one of the women in the group that if she >would learn to roll and brace, she'd lose her fear of capsizing and be able >to handle tougher situations. (SNIP) I think Bob's experience is typical. Oddly enough, many people don't recognise the ramifications implicit in such comments. If you haven't done so, I strongly recommend you read Gerald Wilde's comments at http://home.ican.net/~735769/wilde.htm then , if you want all the data to support his arguments, visit his personal web site where his book is published in its entirety. This, of course is my little crusade. This years GLSKA Safety Weekend will include (for the first time to my knowledge) seminars on instant weather prediction, risk assessment and staying out of trouble to go along with the usual equipment and rolling clinics. 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
Dan Hagen wrote: --snip-- > 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.) I don't have any data, but my impression based on a number of years teaching ww is that intermediate paddlers often over-estimate their skills (e.g. they think that they have a bomb-proof roll simply because they only rarely miss one, rather than actually having a bomb-proof roll), and over-estimate the ability of their technique to get them saely out of something (e.g. the don't worry about flipping because of their ability to roll, but fail to recognize the hazards of head-knocking during a roll). Richard Culpeper *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Robert C. Perkins wrote: > > We've had lots of discussion about safety, but I keep thinking about > the question that John Winters raised some months ago. Paraphrasing > roughly, does having gear and training lead kayakers to take risks that > they would otherwise avoid. [snip] > Later, I heard one of [the roll-capable paddlers] say to one of the women in > the group that if she would learn to roll and brace, she'd lose her fear of > capsizing and be able to handle tougher situations. > I've heard this line of argument before; it's a fairly standard one. > However, I found myself wondering if either of those guys, who obviously > enjoy rolling, could roll consistently in heavy chop or in the reaction > waves thrown up by heavy wakes on a narrow, winding river. [snip] > People like me who don't roll get criticized 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. > 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? I think I'm with Bob on this one. Could be because we're both academics and academics love to wrestle with "Is that really true?" and "How do you know that?" questions ... <Grin>. More seriously: the issue Bob raises is different from the "target risk" issue, though I think there are elements of it in the "if you learned to roll/brace then you could feel OK going on gnarlier stuff" ... paraphrase of a piece of Bob's post. Example: lotsa people do not regularly practice their rescue techniques, let alone in the conditions in which they would likely need to self-rescue. Therefore, they are truly *ignorant* of the risk they are accepting. I don't think that's "aiming for a level of acceptable risk" because those folks have no concept of the risk their behavior entails. Yeah, yeah, we can NEVER completely "know" the level of risk we are tempting, but there are degrees of knowing, and folks who do not practice their rescue techniques are pretty far down the knowledge scale -- in this sport, anyway. Here is the critical phrase from Bob's post: "I have a pretty good grasp of what conditions I can handle and what I can't." I think Bob is the exception, not the rule. My bottom line: I see lots of folks paddling around on cold water, with inadequate immersion protection, PFD on the deck, and I suspect insufficient knowledge of how to deal with a capsize. Sometimes, to be really honest about this, I am one of those people, as yesterday's self-rescue practice on a cold lake proved once again: it was tougher than I remember, I had forgotten some stuff I'd find important in a "real" capsize, and I got colder than I should have. And so it goes ... -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
At 08:09 PM 5/17/98 -0700, Dave Kruger wrote: >Robert C. Perkins wrote: >> >> We've had lots of discussion about safety, but I keep thinking about >> the question that John Winters raised some months ago. Paraphrasing >> roughly, does having gear and training lead kayakers to take risks that >> they would otherwise avoid. >Here is the critical phrase from Bob's post: "I have a pretty good >grasp of what conditions I can handle and what I can't." I think Bob is >the exception, not the rule. > >My bottom line: I see lots of folks paddling around on cold water, with >inadequate immersion protection, PFD on the deck, and I suspect >insufficient knowledge of how to deal with a capsize. Sometimes, to be >really honest about this, I am one of those people, as yesterday's >self-rescue practice on a cold lake proved once again: it was tougher >than I remember, I had forgotten some stuff I'd find important in a >"real" capsize, and I got colder than I should have. > >And so it goes ... >-- >Dave Kruger >Astoria, OR Dave and all Paddlewisers We know about risk in automobiles and hear about death and ingury all the time. We also know about the risk of kayaking but only once and a while hear about death and injury. So is more happening to people that is not getting reported or is it not as dangerous(most of the time)as some of us think? Dana *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote: > > 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. > > ... > > 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. ...SNIP... After reading this I went to his web site to read his book. It should be noted that he also provides examples of studies which do *not* show this (including two Canadian studies). For example, he writes: "The effect of the change in [training] legislation was investigated by researchers at the Université de Montréal, who concluded that the new requirement had no appreciable effect on the frequency or severity of accidents amongst newly licensed drivers who were 18 or older." He goes on to point out that accidents increased for 16 and 17 year-olds, but only because the government-subsidized education allowed more of them to begin driving at an early age. Another example where training did not increase the accident rate is summarized by Wilde as follows: "In Ontario, self-reported and officially recorded accidents were compared between (a) some 800 motorcyclists who had graduated from the Motorcycle Training Programme conducted by the Ontario Safety League, and (b) some 1100 motorcyclists who had informal training only. There was no difference in accident experience between the two groups." Clearly the evidence regarding the effect of training on accident rates is mixed. I am certainly not convinced that skill development in sea kayaking has a tendency to increase accident rates. (Of course we would NOT expect it to decrease accident rates unless skilled paddlers have a lower risk target than unskilled paddlers, which is highly unlikely.) John continues: > ...SNIP... > 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" ... Correct me if I am mistaken, but you seem to be critical of this attitude, *regardless* of whether the person expressing it has correctly assessed the risk. The attitude that "I am better therefore I can take more chances" is perfectly rational so long as the paddler does not underestimate the risk involved. As Wilde points out, optimizing risk is very different from minimizing risk. Skill development creates a safety "problem" only to the extent that the individual becomes overconfident. The fact that skilled paddlers undertake greater challenges than less skilled paddlers is not by itself evidence of a safety problem. Again, I want to emphasize that the type of training that John advocates is exactly what is needed to help prevent overconfidence, which *is* a safety problem. While I am not convinced that skill development leads to overconfidence as a general proposition, certainly there are some individual paddlers who become overconfident, precisely because they have not thought through the risk factors to which John refers in his post. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Dana wrote; > >We know about risk in automobiles and hear about death and ingury all the >time. We also know about the risk of kayaking but only once and a while >hear about death and injury. So is more happening to people that is not >getting reported or is it not as dangerous(most of the time)as some of us >think? > One heck of a good question. I have called the Coast Guard etc.. and the data they collect is pretty sparse. Part of the problem is that they don't know how many people paddle or how much so one doesn't know if the problem is huge or small. Those who instruct a lot see lots of paddlers (more than me since I paddle solo mostly and don't know enough to instruct) and I would guess their impressions might be a good measure of the problem if there is one. 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/ ***************************************************************************
John, Wouldn't the Ontario provincial police (for ontario) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (for the rest of Canada) have such records as deaths among boaters and paddlers? I would think that someone in each respective provice could make such inquiry and the respective authorities would be helpful to provide. Moreover, do you think Stats Canada would already have record? Best Regards, Philip John Winters wrote: > > Dana wrote; > > > > >We know about risk in automobiles and hear about death and ingury all the > >time. We also know about the risk of kayaking but only once and a while > >hear about death and injury. So is more happening to people that is not > >getting reported or is it not as dangerous(most of the time)as some of us > >think? > > > > One heck of a good question. I have called the Coast Guard etc.. and the > data they collect is pretty sparse. Part of the problem is that they don't > know how many people paddle or how much so one doesn't know if the problem > is huge or small. > > Those who instruct a lot see lots of paddlers (more than me since I paddle > solo mostly and don't know enough to instruct) and I would guess their > impressions might be a good measure of the problem if there is one. > > 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/ > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
In Ontario the Ontario Provincial Police keep stats on boating deaths (this is where I came up with the alcohol/half of all boating deaths.) They do not differentiate between motor boats and canoes/kayaks. Philip Wylie wrote: > John, > > Wouldn't the Ontario provincial police (for ontario) > and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (for the rest > of Canada) have such records as deaths among boaters > and paddlers? I would think that someone in each > respective provice could make such inquiry and the > respective authorities would be helpful to provide. > Moreover, do you think Stats Canada would already > have record? > > Best Regards, > > Philip > > John Winters wrote: > > > > Dana wrote; > > > > > > > >We know about risk in automobiles and hear about death and ingury all the > > >time. We also know about the risk of kayaking but only once and a while > > >hear about death and injury. So is more happening to people that is not > > >getting reported or is it not as dangerous(most of the time)as some of us > > >think? > > > > > > > One heck of a good question. I have called the Coast Guard etc.. and the > > data they collect is pretty sparse. Part of the problem is that they don't > > know how many people paddle or how much so one doesn't know if the problem > > is huge or small. > > > > Those who instruct a lot see lots of paddlers (more than me since I paddle > > solo mostly and don't know enough to instruct) and I would guess their > > impressions might be a good measure of the problem if there is one. > > > > 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/ > > *************************************************************************** > *************************************************************************** > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
from Dr. Wilde's book: "one's increased belief in personal skills increases risk taking out of proportion to real risk." This is exactly what I was talking about. I have no problem with paddlers practicing their skills in benign conditions. How else could they learn? I've watched folks play a number of times. But, I have *never* seen paddlers practice their rolls in hostile conditions. How do they know that what they learned to do in the pool or pond is going to work when the chop is high and the wind is blowing? I know from personal experience that an intentional capsize is very different from an unintended capsize, if only because an element of surprise is involved. Clyde Sisler wrote: "Not everyone wants or needs to be an expert in every aspect of any sport. Some folks just like to just paddle around in 'quiet' waters while others like heading out into the rough stuff. IMHO the key is to know your capabilities and limitations and to paddle within them." I understand Clyde's comment. However, I used John Winter's risk chart to calculate the difficulty level for a couple of open water runs that I've done this spring in order to reach or return from the quiet waters that I wanted to paddle. Those open water runs, in each case well over a mile across open water with winds gusting to at least 20 mph, were Grade 5 runs on his chart. I don't necessarily enjoy the rough stuff, it just happens to be between where I am and where I want to go. Therefore I'm always interested in honing my paddling skills. Steve Scherrer wrote "IMHO NOTHING takes the place of PROFESSIONAL INSTRUCTION." I won't argue with Steve's assertion. However, for two years I have looked for roll training that I could attend. There aren't any providers within an hour's drive. I participate, when I can, in the activities of a club located in a neighboring state. One of the members is working on BCU instructor certification and does some teaching now. I'm skeptical. I've seen him blame a mishap on a paddler's lack of skill instead of diagnosing the equipment failure that actually occurred. I've seen plenty of ads for kayaking instruction but I don't have any way to evaluate the competency of the instructors prior to signing up for a course and, as a collegiate institutional researcher who is very familiar with the fact that credentials and competency are two different things, I'm skeptical about claims of professionalism. Continuing that line of thought, I've been thinking about paying for private instruction rather than taking a class with a group. A couple of hours spent with a skilled instructor, dealing with questions that I need to have answered, would be worth more than the cost of that instruction. Bob -------------------------------------------------- Robert C. Perkins, Ph.D. Associate Dean for Research and Planning Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC 28311 910-630-7037 rperkins_at_methodist.edu *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Robert C. Perkins wrote: > > from Dr. Wilde's book: "one's increased belief in personal skills > increases risk taking out of proportion to real risk." > > This is exactly what I was talking about. This quote seems somewhat out of context, at least as a statement of a general proposition. For example, Wilde points out that the most skilled drivers of all--racing drivers--have higher accident rates (on public roads) than less skilled drivers. He rejects, however, the explanation that this is due to overconfidence, prefering instead to attribute the result to differences in risk targets: "In our view, the increased accident frequency of the racing drivers is not due to their superior driving skill--since accident frequency in RHT [Risk Homeostasis Theory] is regarded as ultimately independent of skill--but can more likely be attributed to a greater-than-average acceptance of risk, which induced them to pick up the activity of car racing to begin with. At their level of skill, driving like the average driver may be intolerably boring." This is precisely what I suspect to be true of skilled paddlers. To the extent that they have higher accident rates, it may reflect different attitudes toward the optimal level of risk (as opposed to overconfidence). Elsewhere in the book Wilde provides yet another possible explanation. He suggests that those with fewer skills may tend to OVERestimate risk, which implies that they have lower accident rates than they would if their risk estimates were unbiased. As they become more skilled and better informed about an activity, their accident rates will tend to rise. Such individuals increase their exposure disproportionately with their improvement in skills. The resulting increase in accident rates is **desirable**, however, in the sense that such individuals are converging on their target levels of risk. Finally, if you are to be consistent in your application of Wilde's analysis, you should acknowledge that all of your talk of grave dangers awaiting ill-informed paddlers may contribute to the problem. Warnings can be counterproductive if they exaggerate the risk. As Wilde explains: "This is why over-use of warnings may be dangerous. A warning that is not perceived as needed will not be heeded--even when it is needed. ... Similarly, 'a warning can increase danger when it overstates danger', meaning that a person's behaviour may become less cautious if that person has learned that the danger is usually less great than stated in the warning." The bottom line is that warnings are useful and productive only to the extent that the danger is not overstated. This is something that we should all keep in mind. 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Sun, May 17, 1998 at 10:03:04AM -0500, Robert C. Perkins wrote: > We've had lots of discussion about safety, but I keep thinking about > the question that John Winters raised some months ago. Paraphrasing > roughly, does having gear and training lead kayakers to take risks that > they would otherwise avoid. Let me rephrase this to answer it. Do kayakers take risks? Yes. Do they do it because of gear and training? No. At least among the whitewater community, I don't see any indication that increased training leads to increased risk-taking. In fact, I see the opposite: for example, people who learn how to roll and practice it frequently (in flatwater/whitewater) become keenly aware of just how hard it can be to do under adverse conditions and then strive to avoid putting themselves into those conditions. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > On Sun, May 17, 1998 at 10:03:04AM -0500, Robert C. Perkins wrote: > > We've had lots of discussion about safety, but I keep thinking about > > the question that John Winters raised some months ago. Paraphrasing > > roughly, does having gear and training lead kayakers to take risks that > > they would otherwise avoid. > > Let me rephrase this to answer it. > > Do kayakers take risks? Yes. > > Do they do it because of gear and training? No. > > At least among the whitewater community, I don't see any indication > that increased training leads to increased risk-taking. In fact, > I see the opposite: for example, people who learn how to roll and > practice it frequently (in flatwater/whitewater) become keenly aware > of just how hard it can be to do under adverse conditions and then > strive to avoid putting themselves into those conditions. > > ---Rsk > Rich Kulawiec > rsk_at_gsp.org Rich, With all due respect to your valuable insights on whitewater paddling, the comments that have been coming from other keen observers of this branch of kayaking have been seeing a different phenomenon. People like Charlie Walbridge and others (I forget their names) have been saying that whitewater paddlers are coming up fast because of gear and training and with that taking greater risks in running more difficult waters. That many people are moving up the risk ladder and not just the extreme experts. I am not picking an argument, just wondering how you comment fits with what other observers on your and higher level are saying. ralph -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024 Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz_at_ix.netcom.com "Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, May 19, 1998 at 09:26:04AM -0700, rdiaz_at_ix.netcom.com wrote: > With all due respect to your valuable insights on whitewater paddling, > the comments that have been coming from other keen observers of this > branch of kayaking have been seeing a different phenomenon. People like > Charlie Walbridge and others (I forget their names) have been saying > that whitewater paddlers are coming up fast because of gear and training > and with that taking greater risks in running more difficult waters. > That many people are moving up the risk ladder and not just the extreme > experts. Oh, you (and Charlie, who's a neighbor of mine) are completely right. I think there are two simultaneous phenonema at work here. At the risk of oversimplifying, let me try to divide the people that I know into two groups -- with the caveat that this really is an oversimplication and that the same people sometimes belong to both groups at once. Group A: Take their time to learn skills at each level that they progress through. Master rivers of class N before spending a lot of time on class N+1. Work hard on developing fundamental soundness in basic techniques like ferrying, eddy turns, peel outs, rolling, river reading, etc. Very often recognize a personal "ceiling" which they won't try to go beyond, and are likely to walk a rapid/skip a run if they feel it's beyond their ability. Group B: Tend to erroneously conclude that because they made it down a river, that they're mastered it and can move on. Often tackle rivers of class N+1, N+2 while not yet able to make the hard moves on rivers of class N. May be missing some fundamental skills but may have some advanced skills (e.q. squirting). Tend not to walk *anything*. Don't understand yet that there is a limit to what their skill and equipment will allow them to do *even if they don't know what it is*. Group B paddlers *used* to get knocked into group A early and often by the School of Hard Knocks. However, incredible advances in boat design combined with not-quite-so-dramatic advances in techniques and methods of teaching those techniques have enabled them to progress quite far before this happens -- *if* it happens. In other words, group B paddlers used to get the _at_#*! knocked out of them on class III runs and would either (a) go back and learn (b) quit the sport or (c) in a few cases, continue to get the _at_#*! knocked out of them. However, they now tend to make it all the way to class V or so before this starts to happen to them, at which point some of them end up dead, because a class V butt-kicking can be lethal, while a class III one is usually just embarrassing and annoying. I strongly feel that none of this is a reason to hold back on instruction: but I equally strongly feel that basics need to be emphasized and re-emphasized before people are taught more advanced skills. Let's face it, practicing squirts is a lot more fun than practicing the forward stroke. But the latter is the one that counts when you *must* make it to a certain spot in a rapid or face consequences. But it's difficult for instructors to keep the focus on fundamentals when students are watching other boaters have big fun doing splats and mystery moves and other stunts. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, 19 May 1998 rdiaz_at_ix.netcom.com wrote: > Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 17, 1998 at 10:03:04AM -0500, Robert C. Perkins wrote: > > > We've had lots of discussion about safety, but I keep thinking about > > > the question that John Winters raised some months ago. Paraphrasing > > > roughly, does having gear and training lead kayakers to take risks that > > > they would otherwise avoid. > > > > Let me rephrase this to answer it. > > > > Do kayakers take risks? Yes. > > > > Do they do it because of gear and training? No. > > > > At least among the whitewater community, I don't see any indication > > that increased training leads to increased risk-taking. In fact, > > I see the opposite: for example, people who learn how to roll and > > practice it frequently (in flatwater/whitewater) become keenly aware > > of just how hard it can be to do under adverse conditions and then > > strive to avoid putting themselves into those conditions. > > I see both in the sea kayaking community. Some people have excellent skills and a very healthy respect for the elements and they avoid danger. And a few others - not many, as far as I can tell - have excellent skills and very much enjoy the challenge of rough conditions and seek them out. They know the risks they are taking and consider them worth it. They are the kind of whom, if they get into trouble and don't make it, it will be said "he went the way he would have wanted to." (and I mean _he_, don't know any women whom I would describe that way) Different people have different levels of risk aversion and are averse to different kinds of risks, that definitely explains some of it. There are also a lot of people who know their skills are limited and avoid risks - they may actually be taking the greatest risk, though, because they don't have a good enough sense of how their limits relate to the possible conditions, and may be most likely to make errors of judgment that get them into trouble. Joy Hecht Arlington VA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Dan wrote; (SNIP) > >After reading this I went to his web site to read his book. It should be >noted that he also provides examples of studies which do *not* show this >(including two Canadian studies). For example, he writes: > (SNIP of examples) Yes, he did show examples where training did not have an adverse effect. What one calls an attempt to show all sides of the issue. Nevertheless his conclusion is valid that training does not necessarily result in improved safety. Keep in mind weare dealing with human behaviour which is an enormous variable. The fact that some studies don't produce the the same result may be due to the content of the education or the conduct of the study. Dr. Wilde drew his conclusions from the preponderance of the information. > >Clearly the evidence regarding the effect of training on accident rates >is mixed. I am certainly not convinced that skill development in sea >kayaking has a tendency to increase accident rates. (Of course we would >NOT expect it to decrease accident rates unless skilled paddlers have a >lower risk target than unskilled paddlers, which is highly unlikely.) I can see you aren't convincedf :-) (SNIP) >Correct me if I am mistaken, but you seem to be critical of this >attitude, *regardless* of whether the person expressing it has correctly >assessed the risk. The attitude that "I am better therefore I can take >more chances" is perfectly rational so long as the paddler does not >underestimate the risk involved. As Wilde points out, optimizing risk >is very different from minimizing risk. Skill development creates a >safety "problem" only to the extent that the individual becomes >overconfident. The fact that skilled paddlers undertake greater >challenges than less skilled paddlers is not by itself evidence of a >safety problem. You are most assuredly mistaken. My point has never been that one should not undertake more training, develop more skills, or that the bar should never be raised. My (and that of Dr. Wilde) point is that perceived risk and perceived safety must be appropriately evaluated for a net safety improvement. The goal (it seems to me) is to make sure that perceived safety is lower than real safety and that perceived danger is greater than real danger. The level at which this occurs is not necessarily important. A highly skilled paddler in over his head is not better of than an unskilled paddler in over his head to the same relative degree. >Again, I want to emphasize that the type of training that John advocates >is exactly what is needed to help prevent overconfidence, which *is* a >safety problem. While I am not convinced that skill development leads to >overconfidence as a general proposition, certainly there are some >individual paddlers who become overconfident, precisely because >they have not thought through the risk factors to which John refers in >his post. As can be seen, Dan and I agree on the fundmentals but not necessarily the details. This is why these discussions are so valuable (to me at least) since they reveal different attiutudes and approaches to the same problem. Each time we discuss these issues (and we have many times) I learn more and improve my understanding -hopefully. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Dan wrote; (SNIP) >> >> from Dr. Wilde's book: "one's increased belief in personal skills >> increases risk taking out of proportion to real risk." >> >> This is exactly what I was talking about. > >This quote seems somewhat out of context, at least as a statement of a >general proposition. For example, Wilde points out that the most >skilled drivers of all--racing drivers--have higher accident rates (on >public roads) than less skilled drivers. He rejects, however, the >explanation that this is due to overconfidence, prefering instead to >attribute the result to differences in risk targets: This is a great point. I suspect the dividing line between "risk takers" - those who actively seek risk - and the rest of us is a bit fuzzy. The Tsunami Rangers are definitly a different breed but there must be a lot of people who edge into but don't quite fully enter that category. It may even be that the fuzzy area is the most dangerous. (SNIP) >Finally, if you are to be consistent in your application of Wilde's >analysis, you should acknowledge that all of your talk of grave dangers >awaiting ill-informed paddlers may contribute to the problem. Warnings >can be counterproductive if they exaggerate the risk. As Wilde >explains: > > "This is why over-use of warnings may be dangerous. A warning that is >not perceived as needed will not be heeded--even when it is needed. >... > Similarly, 'a warning can increase danger when it overstates danger', > meaning that a person's behaviour may become less cautious if that > person has learned that the danger is usually less great than stated >in > the warning." >The bottom line is that warnings are useful and productive only to the >extent that the danger is not overstated. This is something that we >should all keep in mind. This is a real problem in paddling. Many people will never experience any real danger when paddling. The converse is that if we don't warn about the dangers then they might find out about them too quickly. This is why the process of methodical risk assessment might be valuable. It might help one to make a better decision regarding risks. This is why a risk assessment protocol might be helpful. Yesterday two girls disappeared while paddling a kayak from Oro Beach to Kempenfelt Bay on Lake Simcoe. According to the news report the water temperature was 15 C. The air temperature was 26 C. The winds were Northwest gusting to 50 Km and blowing offshore. They had little experience, were paddling a "toy" kayak (one that is intended for messing about at the cottage). They had only one paddle between them, no life jackets and were dressed in swimsuits with "T" shirts. There will be an inquest to determine fault. 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:49 PDT