Re: [Paddlewise] Risk - was How and when

Bob wrote:

>
> Actually, there has been a significant decline in the total number of
deaths
> from motor vehicle crashes in the US over the last 20 years or so, and a
> much greater decline in the number of deaths per mile travelled.  Granted
> other factors may be involved, but it does appear that safety improvements
> in autos and roads have made a difference.


Actually this statistic misleads. While the death rate per mile driven has
declined the death rate per head of population has not shown such desirable
trend. See Chapter 5 of Wilde's Target Risk for a complete discussion of
this.

Safety improvements have increased the odds or survival if you have an
accident. They have not reduced the odds that you will have an accident.

Chuck wrote;
(SNIP)

It may be that as new kayakers enter the sport, the older ones acquire
more experience, knowledge, and skills, thus keeping the pool of people
likely to require assistance relatively constant. If John Winters'
theory of risk homeostasis applied to sea kayaking, one would think that
as each kayaker's level of risk stabilized, the number of incidents
would increase in linear proportion to the population of sea kayakers.
In the Apostles, at least, it does not appear to be true.

(SNIP)

First it is not "My" theory although I wish I could take credit for it. :)

I see any reason why any one area's accident profile should suggest that
risk homeostasis does not apply. I am certain the Apostle Islands have fewer
murders than Detroit but I see no reason why one should conclude that the
murder rate has declined nation wide.

Perhaps Chuck (and others) may have reached hasty conclusions regarding my
post.  The theory of risk homeostasis has to do with
perceptions of safety and responses to that perception. It shows how people
typically respond to risk and perceptions but it also shows how we can
modify that response. Instead of treating symptoms, it suggests treating
causes.

To quote from my previous post;

>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.

To rephrase, one can improve ones safety by stabilizing risk at a given
level and "adding" safety through improved skills etc. Perhaps this happens
in the Apostle Islands. Perhaps instructors etc. emphasize a more
appropriate balance between skills and equipment and risk. If so, the
experience in the Apostle Islands supports risk homeostasis.

Ralph provided some good examples of paddlers whose perception of safety
exceeded  their real safety. I like Ralph's use of the phrase "cutting
yourself some slack". To me "cutting yourself some slack" means never having
to use any of your safety devices or having near misses.

In the final analysis, I believe the safest paddlers are those with the most
pessimistic attitude toward the weather, their boats, their skills and their
safety devices.

To get a different feel for how skills affect risk PW readers might want to
read http://home.ican.net/~735769/extra.htm

David Seng wrote;

I'll pass on the ARPEE, I really like paddling alone.

We have some nice deaf mute ARPEE's. You won't even know they are there.
Just consider them a sentient safety device.

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/
***************************************************************************