Re: [Paddlewise] Risk - was How and when

From: 735769 <735769_at_ican.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:47:23 -0500
Dan wrote;

(SNIP)

>
> Back to motorcycles.  I don't ride.  Scared to death of the being hit by
> the four wheeled machines.  But I don't think there should be helmet laws.
> If you want to ride without a helmet you have to justify this to yourself
> and family.  Not me.  Not my business.  Car & Driver had an editorial
piece
> a couple of issues back on helmet laws.  It seems that the death/serious
> injury rates are LOWER in states that DO NOT have helmet laws.  The
> comparisons where both by number of riders as well as the rate of riders
> per miles driven.  Go figure.
>

This has to do with something called risk homeostasis. Basically the theory
says that each person has a comfortable level of risk. If they perceive they
have greater safety they increase their level of risk until they reach their
comfort level (and vice versa). Thus, if paddlers (or motorcycle drivers)
perceive that a device or skill makes them safer they will increase their
levels of risk thus increasing their chance of an accident and, more often
than not, will increase the probable severity of an accident..

Despite all the modern safety devices on automobiles our level of safety
hasn't really changed. We drive faster and more aggressively and get into
more and more serious accidents.

This does not mean that safety devices etc. do not save lives. they do -  if
you have an accident. Unfortunately they often also increase your chances of
having an accident as one adjusts the comfort level to suit the increased
perception of safety. One has to differentiate between reactive safety and
active safety. Decorating yourself and boat with safety equipment and rescue
skills and going out in scary conditions with a high risk of capsize or
danger is reactive safety as it kicks in only after things go wrong. Looking
at conditions and staying ashore to read a book is active safety because you
have reduced the possibility of an accident.

Does this mean you should not use safety devices? No. It means that the
device may offer no net increase in safety unless your level of risk remains
constant. In short, to increase real safety you want to increase your level
of safety but decrease your perception of safety. By all means, wear your
wet suit (life jacket, etc.) but stay ashore if you think you might need to
use it.

>From this one can see a hint at the problem with giving people "good
advice". If they do not perceive an appropriate level of danger your advice
falls on deaf ears. Often the perception of safety far exceeds real safety.

Dr. Gerald Wilde, one of the leading researchers in this field has written a
condensed version of the theory as it applies to outdoor activities that you
can read at http://home.ican.net/~735769/wilde.htm  . If you find it
interesting you can follow the link to his web site where you will find the
full text of his book "Target Risk" (I think. I have not visited it lately).

Cheers,

John Winters
Redwing Designs
Web site address, http://home.ican.net/~735769

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
Received on Thu Nov 04 1999 - 05:26:15 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:16 PDT