Re: [Paddlewise] Risk - (Safety Factor)

You guys have raised an excellent point,
This is just like the safety factor used in engineering.  An engineer's
first duty is public safety, no matter what their emphasis, no matter
what project.  To design a bridge, for example, to carry 40-Ton trucks,
a civil engineer will design the bridge with a safety factor of 2.0 or
3.0 (for 80- or 120-ton loads), knowing that the bridge will someday
deteriorate, and there is always some idiot out there who will drive
over their GVW and have 45T or more.  Not to mention the fact that
sometimes (it does happen) engineers do make mistakes, so it is better
to make the mistake on the side of over-engineering.


Calvin and Hobbes outtake on this scenario:
Calvin: "Dad, how do they know what number to put on the sign on a
bridge"
Dad: "Well, they build the bridge, and then drive heavier and heavier
trucks over the bridge until it breaks.  Then they rebuild the bridge
and they know how heavy trucks can drive over it."

Too bad there isn't a cut-and-dry numeric system you could use to
determine how risky a paddle is for a given paddler.  It's fairly easy
for an experienced paddler to know what conditions they are capable of
paddling in, but for an experienced paddler, there is no prelearned
knowledge to base this judgement call on.

There are always risks present; even risks of problems that could hurt a
good paddler.  I consider myself to be a fairly proficient paddler, but
what if I injured my shoulder and couldn't roll or paddle very well? 
What if I was solo at the time?  This situation could make even an easy
trip risky.  Maybe Dr. Inverbon is right about ARPEE's! ;)

Shawn


Ralph Diaz wrote:
>>What I get out of this is to make certain to have x number(or quality)
of safety items(and direct knowledge of their use not just reading
knowledge) and paddling skills(good power stroke; bracing and/or
rolling) to deal with situations but allow yourself to only get into
situations that are x minus some factor (with that factor being quite
hefty).  I think it is wrong to match up specific gear/skills with
specific risks.  Give yourself a very wide margin of difference between
the two.  And perhaps look at the gear/skills to help in risky
situations that develop unexpectedly while out on the water rather than
setting off into such conditions.<<

John Winters) wrote:

> 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..

-- 
Shawn W. Baker          0                                    46°53'N
© 1999            ____©/______                              114°06'W
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^\  ,/      /~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
baker_at_montana.com    0        http://www.missoulaconcrete.com/shawn/
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************