Re: [Paddlewise] Risk Homeowhatsis

Dave Kruger wrote:
> And, when we decide somebody was woefully unprepared, aren't we often just
> projecting our own level of "acceptable risk" onto their behavior?

I disagree--I don't think knowing a person's own acceptable risk level
is necessary to determine that they were unprepared.  I think if I go
out and have an accident, or require a rescue, I've been woefully
unprepared, no matter what someone else's "acceptable risk" quotient is,
and how they view the conditions I was in.  It may be below someone like
Doug Lloyd's threshold of acceptable risk, or way above that of a true
novice, but the fact would remain, that I was still unprepared.

I'll use Doug's "allies for survivability" as an example: Try, in order,
common 
sense, constant paddler's  awareness, knowledge/understanding of your
skill level,
knowledge/understanding of your environment, the ability to think 
three-dimensionally/proactively, *complete* self-reliance,
preparation/training, good gear and back-up gear, to name a few.

If my common sense and knowledge of my skills fail and I go out in
conditions way over my head, I was still partly unprepared, even if I
end up relying on my gear or back-up gear to get my butt safely back to
the beach.  Your own acceptable risk, though, is partly based on how
prepared you are.

I think I judged the Maine kayaker's level of unpreparedness and his
behavior on their own merits and not based on my acceptable risk.

> I used to have a group of friends whose comfort zone climbing was outlandishly
> different from mine:  I would not ice climb couloirs which had lots of
> stonefall.  Nor would I "free climb" without the protection of a rope on
> high-angle rock.  They did, and felt comfortable with their "acceptable
> risk."  Ahhhmmm ... sure wish I could ask them about that, but most of them
> are dead now ... victims of their "acceptable level of risk."

That's too bad, Dave.  It's kind of a grim consolation to say, "You were
smart and survived" but in hindsight, you can really see that your
acceptable level of risk was truly acceptable.

Back to the original topic of risk homeostasis, I recently cut a trip
short because I forgot some of my safety equipment at home, namely,
flares and mirror.  I was going to cross a 4-mile wide bay on Flathead
lake.  Water temperature was about 58*, air 65*, sunny, 5 mph breeze,
and no serious weather forecast for at least a week.  There was maybe 6"
of chop, and barely any motorboat traffic.  I turned back and didn't do
the crossing, because I didn't have my backup safety equipment.  I
didn't need it, but there was that one-in-a-million chance I might, and
I'd be unable to summon help if I'd needed it.  Am I guilty of risk
homeostasis, (gear would have made me feel "safer") or did I just make a
prudent decision?

Shawn

-- 
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/
***************************************************************************