Re: [Paddlewise] Risk Homeowhatsis

Shawn wrote;

(SNIP)

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?


Risk homeostasis is not something that one is "guilty of". Risk homeostasis
presents a theory of how people respond to risk (for better or worse). Your
not going on the trip demonstrates your acceptable level of risk. If you had
gone, that too would have demonstrated your acceptable level of risk. Either
way your actions reflect risk homeostasis at work. Risk homeostasis theory
seeks to explain how we respond to our environment and risks.

Think of it as working like a thermostat. The thermostat turns on the heat
when the temperature gets below a certain level and turns it off when it
gets up to a certain level. Individuals have a  comfortable level of
acceptable risk and when it begins to exceed that level they modify their
behavior accordingly. If the perceived risk does not reach their comfort
level they will accept additional risk.

The interesting aspect of risk homeostasis surfaces when one examines the
perception of risk.

Your flares and mirror had the potential of improving your lot after things
went wrong but would not protect you from an accident. Your decision not to
go eliminated any chance of capsize and proactively improved your safety.

The problem for most of us has to do with not knowing with any precision the
dangers we face.
For example, once we capsize our level of risk increases because we may not
have a fool proof roll (does anyone?).   If our roll fails and we bail out
of the boat our risk increases again because we now have increased danger of
separation from the boat. If our paddle float rescue (or other assisted
rescue) attempt fails and we get separated from the boat then our level of
risk increases again.

Of course, there are lots of variables and every time something goes wrong
things look darker but by how much? Does a failed roll double your risk,
Triple it? I don't know how one could quantify such things. How do we factor
in fear, shock, etc. We can avoid all risk but that certainly reduces one's
fun.

If we set our acceptable level of risk at a one that provides the proper
balance of safety VS risk we have lots of good safe fun. If we get it wrong
we either get bored or drown.

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