"When he returned, I asked him why, over the years, the family had so stubbornly refused to use any safety device, up to and including a net." "You can't count on them," he shrugged. "You can get hurt just as badly with them as without them." .... I asked if a net wouldn't have saved lives in Detroit, and he said, "All seven of them might have gone down and been killed if they'd believed they'd be saved by a net." A net, he claimed, creates a false sense of security and would almost certainly have become a tacit cause for slippage in the family's meticulous performance standards. "If the net's not there, " he said, " you have the best reason of all for staying on the wire." >From interview of Rick Wallenda by Charles Wilkins in "The Circus at the Edge of the Earth" ISBN 0-7710-8847-7. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
And the sound of applause echoes through the net... Thanks for a breath of fresh air! Scott way too safety conscious, or maybe not, but still just east of Bimini..... *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I not only agree, but _kind_ of identify with this thinking, if in a much smaller way. We live on a small 25 acre patch of heaven. One of the things we are blessed with seeing out here is snakes. Several kinds and most are harmless. We do have rattlesnakes tho. Few days go by with out seeing a snake of some kind. Today we had 2 rattlers and yesterday one was moved off of our back porch. It has been our policy to not kill any rattlers. Number one, it won't keep us from getting bit by the next one. Number two, I don't kill anything with out good cause. Number three, they eat things I don't like in the house. Number four, they were here before us. Number five, most important, they cause us to PAY ATTENTION to what is out here. The wife was slow to this at first, but she agrees with me now. Sure beats a cup of coffee to open your eyes in the morning on that early walk around the land!(I wear sandels and shorts too) I might also add that not dressing for emersion in the winter also keeps me screamingly in tune to the conditions. James Richard Culpeper wrote: > > "When he returned, I asked him why, over the years, the family had > so stubbornly refused to use any safety device, up to and including a > net." > "You can't count on them," he shrugged. "You can get hurt just as > badly with them as without them." > .... I asked if a net wouldn't have saved lives in Detroit, and he said, > "All seven of them might have gone down and been killed if they'd > believed they'd be saved by a net." A net, he claimed, creates a false > sense of security and would almost certainly have become a tacit cause > for slippage in the family's meticulous performance standards. "If the > net's not there, " he said, " you have the best reason of all for > staying on the wire." > > >From interview of Rick Wallenda by Charles Wilkins in "The Circus at the > Edge of the Earth" ISBN 0-7710-8847-7. > *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Risk Homeowhatsis > I might also add that not dressing for emersion in the winter also keeps > me screamingly in tune to the conditions. > > James =========================== Hi James, Sounds like a great plan. Are you recommending this for everyone? Tell us about your rolling skills. Is part of your plan to never capsize in cold water? Chuck Sutherland http://www.enter.net/~skimmer *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
skimmer_at_mail.enter.net wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Risk Homeowhatsis > > > I might also add that not dressing for emersion in the winter also keeps > > me screamingly in tune to the conditions. > > > > James > =========================== > > Hi James, > > Sounds like a great plan. Are you recommending this for everyone? > Nope! Not even saying it is a great plan. It is the way I do it tho. I also have a very solid vision of the risks/consequinses, and so does my wife. > Tell us about your rolling skills. > I paddle a folding kayak. Never tried to roll, and can't emagine why I would want to learn. I do work full time at keeping the inside of the boat and me dry tho. > Is part of your plan to never capsize in cold water? > That's right! I did that many years ago(in janurary)with an empty boat. Didn't much care for it. Now days I carry lots of exspencive camera gear and ham radios that would likely be ruined if I flipped. I agree that no one should go out nilly willy without a second though about the dangers, no matter what the season. I just figure(and most likely disagree)that the odds of me needing a drysuit, given the area I paddle and the conditions I choose to paddle in, is so low on the scale that I have decided to dress for the air temps and enjoy my life instead of the olterative sp?. I do understand your concerns, and appreciate your thoughts. I do wear a PFD full time, so in the event that I do get in over my head someday..., well, atleast they won't have to go diving for me, right. James > Chuck Sutherland > http://www.enter.net/~skimmer *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Chuck and James wrote; (SOME SNIPS) > > I might also add that not dressing for emersion in the winter also keeps > > me screamingly in tune to the conditions. > > > > James > > Sounds like a great plan. Are you recommending this for everyone? > > Tell us about your rolling skills. > > Is part of your plan to never capsize in cold water? > > Chuck Sutherland Now that we have snow on the ground and ice on the creek I hope you will forgive me for lapsing into a reminiscing mode prompted by this post. Back when I first started paddling white water I did most of my whitewater paddling during the spring run-off while snow still covered the ground and ice lined the banks a this was the only time our local rivers had enough water for paddling. In those days few people had wet suits and we wore wool. Sort of like old time river drivers. (Richard Culpeper paddled the same general area and he can correct my recollections where ever he feels he should). It seems to me that we had fewer capsizes in those days. In fact, I had my first cold water whitewater capsize AFTER I bought my dry suit. We certainly had fewer beginners paddling early in the season and used to list those trips as expert trips. Now I think we list them as intermediate trips. Of course, we could not roll our canoes (frequently tandem Grummans) so a capsize had pretty severe consequences. I believe the knowledge of the consequences led to far greater caution than that used by paddlers today who have vastly superior cold weather clothing. Some would argue we had better skills but I think we just had a different, more cautious approach. Those who have paddled canoes in the open ocean in the far north also seem to exercise considerable caution. We never do plan to capsize in cold water or even plan around it. I have always felt that this type of behavior supported the theory of risk homeostasis. We recognized the dangers and adjusted our risk level to suit. I short, we didn't paddle if we perceived a risk of capsize. many times I can recall walking around a rapid that I had run just because the water level had changed and I wasn't sure of the proper line. I believe you can see risk homeostasis at work every time you paddle whitewater in the wilderness where loss of your boat and equipment, not to mention injury, tempers one's judgment. White water one would normally run closer to home gets walked around or lined down where the consequences become more serious. If we exclude the people who paddle for thrills or just to see how far they can stretch their abilities then: I certainly would not recommend that everyone stop wearing their cold weather gear but I certainly would recommend that they paddle as if they didn't. I certainly would not recommend that people not learn to roll but I certainly would recommend that the paddle like they couldn't. I certainly would recommend that people plan not to capsize in cold water by avoiding conditions that increase that probability. To provide some idea of how I approach this kind of thing visit my non-commercial web page http://home.ican.net/~735769/safety.htm that provides a way of estimating the danger of a given paddling situation. I hope you find it helpful. I also would appreciate your comments. If you don't want to bother with the web page, here is a snippet from it. "The safe paddler is a pessimist. He knows that no safety equipment is perfect. He only believes the worst in a weather report and then tempers it with his own knowledge of local conditions. Most of all, he recognizes that his perception of safety must be pessimistic to avoid exceeding his skills. This may be the most frequent and fatal mistake of all - the overestimation of ones safety based upon the assumption that safety gear or skills improve safety. Safety gear and rescues do improve your chances after you have done something wrong but you are never safer than if you hadn't made the mistake in the first place. As Derek Hutchinson so aptly said, "Knowing how to roll is a sign of success, having to roll is a sign of failure." Safe paddling means not having to use your rescue devices or skills." 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/ ***************************************************************************
735769 wrote: > > Back when I first started paddling white water I did most of my whitewater > paddling during the spring run-off while snow still covered the ground and > ice lined the banks a this was the only time our local rivers had enough > water for paddling. In those days few people had wet suits and we wore wool. > > It seems to me that we had fewer capsizes in those days. In fact, I had my > first cold water whitewater capsize AFTER I bought my dry suit. We certainly > had fewer beginners paddling early in the season and used to list those > trips as expert trips. Now I think we list them as intermediate trips. > This certainly fits with my WW practices. In the summer, I am willing to hop into holes and waves that might flip me, because the fun of playing is not tempered by the risk of flipping into cold water. When I boat in the winter, I am much less playful, and take more conservative lines through rapids. Steve *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 11/9/1999 8:36:46 AM Central Standard Time, 735769_at_ican.net writes: << Some would argue we had better skills but I think we just had a different, more cautious approach. >> Admit it! You were crazy! Ans still are! Nothing like cold aluminum on ones feet to give him the urge to stay upright! May the Brumman whitewater modelsw still reign (overturned in the backyard). Here is a pix of mine down on teh river. John & Susan LeBlanc O___ O___ |\ / |\ / (____|_\/________|_\/_____) ~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~Bluecanoe2_at_aol.com~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
----- Original Message ----- From: <Bluecanoe2_at_aol.com> To: <PaddleWise_at_lists.intelenet.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Risk Homeowhatsis > > Admit it! You were crazy! Ans still are! Nothing like cold aluminum on > ones feet to give him the urge to stay upright! > Not so much the feet but the butt. One paddler friend says that the aluminum Grumman seats have caused more hemorrhoids than bad diet. 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/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote <snip> > > To provide some idea of how I approach this kind of thing visit my > non-commercial web page > http://home.ican.net/~735769/safety.htm that provides a way of estimating > the danger of a given paddling situation. I hope you find it helpful. I also > would appreciate your comments. > ======= John's notion that *Rating Guide for Sea Kayaking Conditions* can be formulated as *Rating = Sum of risk values for each condition* seems well thought out and useful to me. However i propose that injection of kaos into the computation might make it more likely to include the uncertainty that we often encounter. risk value for kaos = standard deviation of all other *relevant* risk values. hence kaos risk increases when the relevant riks values are divergent... Uncertain World Rating = John's Rating + Kaos risk value. No change to the Rating Tables. What do you think John? yes to kaos value or no to kaos value. bye bye bliven *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 11/9/99 5:51:47 PM, Bluecanoe2_at_aol.com writes: << May the Brumman whitewater modelsw still reign (overturned in the backyard). Here is a pix of mine down on teh river. >> Ours, spelled with a G, is resting happily on the driveway. The 'yaks are sooooo much easier to load on the car. The dog is the only reason we heft her onto the racks at all. If not for that, she might become a planter in the back yard. It used to amaze me to go to people's homes and see little boats of different descriptions scattered around the yard. Now I spend part of my free time working on future plans for a rack system to hold the 4 already here and the planned additions. Mowing the grass always means major movement of boats. Does the canoe go on top as an umbrella or at the bottom as to damn heavy to lift up? I just can't find that 18' of fence that doesn't already have plants established there. No garage and too many right angles to get into the basement. I hate to give up part of the patio but that may be where they go. I guess I could just make the patio bigger. We are house hunting. Just guess what the first thing I look for. Moving is easier than figuring this out where we live now. Joan *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
>John Winters wrote: <snip> To provide some idea of how I >approach this kind of thing visit my non-commercial web page >http://home.ican.net/~735769/safety.htm that provides a way >of estimating the danger of a given paddling situation. I hope >you find it helpful. I also would appreciate your comments. Then Larry replied: >>John's notion that *Rating Guide for Sea Kayaking Conditions* >>can be formulated as*Rating = Sum of risk values for each condition* >>seems well thought out and useful to me. However i propose that >>injection of kaos into the computation might make it >>more likely to include the uncertainty that we often encounter <snip>. Doug Lloyd comments: I have a love/hate relationship with attempts at rating sea kayak conditions. I love looking at these rating guides because anyone who has the gumption to even try and achieve such a complicated task deserves respect. I know of no one who has attempted this task, who is *not* in tune with reality. They all have a lot of experience, and genuinely are trying to help people determine a safe level for paddling. I love reviewing these rating attempts because they provoke thought and introspection. Rick Davies published one in Wavelenght called "Go/No Go". I have a friend who has a valuable, yet unpublished scale, declined by Sea Kayaker Magazine. Canoe & Kayak Magazine have one out. The Sea Kayak Association of BC have one on their web page. I tried making one for my club but gave up. There are others. The Tsunami Rangers have one out now, that their Commander has applied to a recent incident which I forwarded to SK Mag. Eric uses his "scale" to review the risk factors in the latest SK Mag. I had some input into the rating system. (The systems I look at are all sea kayak related). Having said all that, I hate them. The elements that comprise an individual's or group's decision to paddle are so variable, so internal, so experiential, so...so intangible I just don't see how one can delineate it on paper. You want kaos? There are so many variables at work at any one given moment, at least on the open sea; so many changeable elements, and so many considerations and choices depending on what level of exposure and risk you feel like taking that particular day or hour. Everything these days is classified, codified, searchableized, digitized, theorized, etc, etc. The ocean, lake, and river paddling realms are some of the last bastions of honest adventure and challenge left, that are reasonably accessible to "the people" and impossible to control. Packaging it all up into a tidy little "gift" for public consumption, especially when rating systems don't really work, ain't cool with me as a reliable index - only as a promt. Of course, most rating system inventors always caveated their scale with a note about its usefulness in the "real world". I'd be the first to say I'd like a BA or MA in Ocean Kayaking Riskology where everything is systematically broken down and taught; heck, most of my paddling friends in Victoria would give good money to pay my way. But I wouldn't go in the end. I'd just keep reading books on risk management, studying other's mistakes, evaluating my own, rubbing shoulders with better paddlers and keeping an open mind to what they have to teach. And most of all, keep paddling on the water, where mother nature's pedagogically preeminent presence continues to train and instruct if one's spirit is at peace, one's heart is humble, one's mind engaged, one's body in tune, and one's target for risk is hitting the bullseye because experience is being gained in appropriate degrees commensurate with your objectives. John has made a great attempt. And as always, it is done with cerebral intensity in his usual indubitable manner. If it is flawed, it is only because by nature, all rating systems are imperfect. It is one of the better ones around, however. What do I worry about right now? I wonder how many PW'rs even bothered to look up John's site to engage an intelligent dialog within themselves. I wonder how many didn't even look at this thread initially. How many people take risk management seriously? What are _my_ greatest allies for survivability, if that is the name of the game? Not rating systems, that's for sure. 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. Another big one - protocol*. On a big lake or ocean with significant winds and waves, open Canadian canoes are at high risk. On a wild river, solo WW canoe or river kayaker shouldn't be out there. Proper team-river kayaking in a group? People still die, but it seems more "acceptable". Big surf? Shouldn't be out alone. Ocean/lake solo kayaking or in a small group in challenging conditions? Guess we are still deciding what is publically acceptable or within "community standards". Best if you are able to rescue yourself and take care of yourself in the aftermath, for the conditions you are in or could get caught in. (The above presupposes experienced paddlers in each category mentioned for average-for-them conditions). Better yet, avoid trouble in the first place. Now how do you do that? I guess rating systems do have a place! *Protocol - the recent incident near South Portland, Maine, with the bellbouy clinging kayaker: Alone, no back-up gear, short kayak, outflow current/inflow winds (I assume), to my way of thinking, is out of tune with acceptable, normal paddling protocol. Anyway, I could expand on my above "survivability" rules, if there is interest. It would be *my* "rating system". Circuitously yours, Doug Lloyd *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Doug Lloyd wrote: [monster snip] > What are _my_ greatest allies for survivability, if that is the name of the > game? Not rating systems, that's for sure. 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. Good list. Worth noting is that "ability to think three-dimensionally ..." is a difficult skill for some folks, and while the ability can be improved, a few never reach a high level. Example: a former colleague, though well-motivated to develop the ability to "read" topographical maps, **never** could do it, despite repeated, intensive attempts. [snip] > Another big one - protocol[:] the recent incident near South Portland, > Maine, with the bellbouy clinging kayaker: Alone, no back-up gear, shor > kayak, outflow current/inflow winds (I assume), to my way of thinking, is > out of tune with acceptable, normal paddling protocol. Isn't "protocol" just risk homeostasis in different clothing? Seems to me the "protocol" we agree is the norm for surf kayaking (for example) is just the kit of tools and skills which reduces the risk to some "herd-acceptable" level -- the level which almost every kayak surfer feels is OK (excluding Tsunami Ranger-types). And, when we decide somebody was woefully unprepared, aren't we often just projecting our own level of "acceptable risk" onto their behavior? 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." -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR not accepting much risk these days *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Doug Lloyd and John Winters have written some provocative posts about risk and in the case of the latter, a well thought out webpage as well. I looked at the recent Sea Kayaker scale prepared by the Tsunami Ranger (and apparently helped a bit by Doug) and have seen others throughout the years. I agree with Doug that all of them are too complex and really can't work for each individual or even enough individuals to make them something to hold up as scales for determining "go, no go" decisions. I think this decision is in your guts. It goes beyond where you are on the skill/gear scale against the conditions scale. Most of us know deep inside when we are being stupid...the problem is listening to that inner voice. Most of have enough sense to resist peer pressure or to know when someone who is leading a particular excursion is not making the right decisions. Resorting to a scale numbs that internal voice. I am certain Doug, whose experience and skills tower over that of most of us, has looked out on a day on which he could easily deal with the conditions and made the decision to pack up and go back home or somewhere else. I think the main value in the scales such as that in Sea Kayaker is that they enumerate all or most of the factors to consider in terms of skill, gear and sea conditions. And this is of particular help for those starting out. Such enumeration instills in you, for your inner voice to listen to, things to consider subconsciously. For example, a beginner in his enthusiasm may not consider possible weather changes or winds possibly being stronger around the corner than at the launch site. So he learns to listen to the full day's weather forecast with an ear for any possible changes; and looks at a chart with a mind toward wind direction and how land features may shelter or expose him/her throughout the day. In this sense the scales should be looked at as darn good general checklists of factors to consider but not as a decision maker. You make the decision and put whatever weights you want on each point that your gut tells you to do on that particular day. Risk management is best served by careful route plotting. Risk varies by the particular stretch of water you are paddling and what winds and currents and other such conditions are doing at the particular hours you are tranversing the area. Almost invariably when paddlers run into trouble it is because of lack of attention and foresight regarding their route as it will be affected by weather and other variables on that day. By considering the route carefully, you can also pre-set for yourself some tests for deciding whether to continue or not. I can't count the number of times that I have set off to go from Point A to D carefully considering everything only to find that I wasn't feeling comfortable at around Point B and just turned around to cut a planned 4 hour paddle to a half hour. The retreat-to-paddle-another-day decision went basically this way. "Hmmm, things are happening a bit more chaotically than I thought they would be at this point when I was back home or at the launch site. Knowing what I know about the route ahead, conditions are only going to get worse. Why risk going on further? I want to _enjoy_ this life activity, not _endure_ it. I have nothing to prove. I can always paddle another day." There are no scales that can conduct that thought process for you. ralph diaz -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024 Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz_at_ix.netcom.com "Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
rdiaz_at_ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Doug Lloyd and John Winters have written some provocative posts about > risk and in the case of the latter, a well thought out webpage as well. > (snip) I can only agree, and of course, thank you for your always thoughtful input too, Ralph. I really can't add anything here, but hopefully think on what has been said and learn. Maybe re-learn, maybe re-think. I'm getting older and somewhere that line of knowledge we proudly add to each trip(hopefully), runs into anouther line that is being drawn(even if we don't acknowledge it), that is called age-induced-bad or slow judgement. These may not be the correct words, but maybe you get my drift. Getting too content with our well won skills might even enter into the equasion...? (Ralph continues) > Almost invariably when paddlers run into > trouble it is because of lack of attention and foresight regarding their > route as it will be affected by weather and other variables on that >day.(SNIP) The lack of attention. Wonder how many people could undo a bad or fatal moment, if only they had paid attention.? It's amazing how darned focused one can get when facing possible death. Such a shame if you loose. I won't tell the whole story here, but once I was enjoying a perfect day at the end of a long lake(30+ miles fetch). There was ZERO wind and in about 30 minents sp? I would be off the lake and back onto the river. Just at the middle of a no turning back point on the cross'n, a ripple "rushed" under my boat, coming from the far end of the lake. It was followed by a second. I will guess that there is several of you reading this that knows what was about to happen to my "perfect", head up my butt day. If you havn't read it before, try to find a copy of the short story by Jack London, called "To build a fire". It is a pretty darn good story of how complacity sp? in what we think we know, can really ruin a day. James *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
Larry wrote; (SNIP) > > However i propose that injection of kaos into the computation might make it > more likely to include the uncertainty that we often encounter. > > risk value for kaos = standard deviation of all other *relevant* risk > values. > hence kaos risk increases when the relevant riks values are divergent... > > Uncertain World Rating = John's Rating + Kaos risk value. > No change to the Rating Tables. Great idea if I can figure out how to do it using my rotten math skills. Does anyone out there remember the classic chaos type of formula? Is it n = n ^(1-n) or is it x --> x2 + c? Maybe neither one. One problem. It may breed so much paranoia and uncertainty that no one will ever paddle again. HMMM Maybe not a problem at all. :) Doug Lloyd wrote a well thought out commentary on rating systems that I confess to agreeing with even though I developed a rating system. In defense of rating systems I would say that one hopes they will force people with limited backjgrounds to think first and act later. I have no doubt that some damned fool will take a rating system, add it up and decide evertthing is safe and then go drown. The consolation derives from the suspicion he would have drowned anyway. My hope was that people would read it, recognise the complexity of paddling risk, and try to learn more. Hopefully they would learn enough to not need the system. One of the interesting aspects of systems came to light when I read Eric Soare's system in Sea Kayaker. Eric's system increased the rating by one point for every mile per hour increase in wind speed when the forces involved increase geometrically (wind force, increases with the square of velocity). I wonder if most people don't perceive these factors in a linear manner which results in under estimating the risk. To give some idea of the complexity consider swim distance. eric uses 1 point for every 100 meters and yet 100 meters might as well be 1000 meters if you can't swim. I mention this not as critcism of Eric's system but to show just how difficult coming up with any kind of rating system and to show (as Doug pointed out) their weaknesses. Sometimes when I look at mine I want to chuck it but I keep tweaking it in hopes it will actually benefit some one some day. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Kaos Term: >>Injection of kaos into the computation might make it >> more likely to include the uncertainty that we often encounter. > >risk value for kaos = standard deviation of all other *relevant* risk values. >>hence kaos risk increases when the relevant riks values are divergent... > >Uncertain World Rating = John's Rating + Kaos risk value. >>No change to the Rating Tables. ======== Snipped from John's reply: >Great idea if I can figure out how to do it using my rotten math skills. >Does anyone out there remember the classic chaos type of formula? >Is it n = n ^(1-n) or is it x --> x2 + c? Maybe neither one. ============= John, my math can be weak too, but sometimes words work. insight into how chaos enters into *predicting* sea kayaking risk at some *future* time from *present* conditions can be obtained by reading http://order.ph.utexas.edu/chaos/index.html i've gotten side tracked on chaotic music, http://www.industrialstreet.com/chaos/Music.asp so i haven't gotten to mathimatical formulation of chaos for sea kayaking. maybe there's a math enriched paddler who know kaos already... any help out there? by the way, one of Prof Willard Pierson's (NYU) claims to fame was introducing statistical methods into wave analaysis... as in wave spectra. Maybe it's time for some sea kayakers to accept kaos as a way of envisioning how some kayaking events unfold... bye bye bliven *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
>Doug Lloyd wrote: > >[monster snip] >> What are _my_ greatest allies for survivability, if that is the name of the >> game? Not rating systems, that's for sure. 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. Dave replied: >Good list. Worth noting is that "ability to think three-dimensionally ..." is >a difficult skill for some folks, and while the ability can be improved, a few >never reach a high level. Example: a former colleague, though well-motivated >to develop the ability to "read" topographical maps, **never** could do it, >despite repeated, intensive attempts. Doug says: Those who have three-dimensional thinking abilities (3-DT) when operating in a moderate to high risk environment have the edge. This type of thinking skill is probably understood by some of the navy pilot types we have in our PW group. Fighter pilots are dead without it. The game of chess develops 3-DT. Chess players perhaps go to extremes at the higher levels, often cognating for hours over a single move (unless under a time limit). Chess is a game of calculations and of complex multiple-mental permutations. I like sea kayaking on the open ocean, on multi-day trips where you develop 3-DT. Like chess, the next "move" of mother nature may force you to recalculate all your options. Route planing, as Ralph noted recently, taxes your 3-DT -- or moreover, tests the results in real time soon enough. Dave suggests correctly that while one's 3-DT ability can be improved, some individuals don't reach a high level. I find this can be generally true, but I also have seen some kayakers who have low to average intelligence increase their cognition potential as they take on higher risk activity. I've also seen intelligent, doctoral level individuals who just didn't have a clue, finally getting nicked by the high risk's razor edge. Bloody messes, they was. As part of our training curriculum at my local club, we developed 3-DT exercises for new paddlers, using real life examples from the book "Deep Trouble", breaking down the various factors, and then seeing if the students could predict outcomes. While some of the executive felt we should push hard skills, I desperately pleaded that we incorporate the above type of exercises too. To me, it was mission critical. I lost out in the end, and hard skills won the day. I said originally: >[snip] >> Another big one - protocol[:] the recent incident near South Portland, >> Maine, with the bellbouy clinging kayaker: Alone, no back-up gear, shor >> kayak, outflow current/inflow winds (I assume), to my way of thinking, is >> out of tune with acceptable, normal paddling protocol. Dave replied: >Isn't "protocol" just risk homeostasis in different clothing? Seems to me the >"protocol" we agree is the norm for surf kayaking (for example) is just the >kit of tools and skills which reduces the risk to some "herd-acceptable" level >-- the level which almost every kayak surfer feels is OK (excluding Tsunami >Ranger-types). > Doug" Well, yeah. Its all a matter of degree. I was just concerned because Dave said in an earlier post about bellboy (spelling intentional), not to be too hard on the guy, that Dave could see himself accidently getting himself in to a similar situation. No, I don't think so. This guy was way over the edge for normal. I take a lot of risks, but I do it with my eyes wide open (well, most of the time). I don't have a rivers edge to crawl up too and get back in the kayak. To me, this guy just didn't fit into any normal category. He has a right to be out there. I'm not opposed to that. Especially not me. I just felt he was a loose cannon in a sport where we all take aim at certain activities and levels of risk; that most of us know what kind of skill and equipment we need to have to undertake said activity in a manner commensurate with typical customs. Dave: >And, when we decide somebody was woefully unprepared, aren't we often just >projecting our own level of "acceptable risk" onto their behavior? Doug: Apples and oranges. Dave: >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." Doug: I've climbed too, in the Purcels, and part way up Mt Assiniboine. I've done "Australian" repelling down some steep faces (repelling backwards, face out from the wall). I always knew when I was doing something dumb. I knew I would turn into one of those mountain statistics. I also gave it all up as too dangerous generally -- Marmots biting your hands at four in the frigging morning as you ascend from base camp, falling rock, unstable ice bridges. I find water a lot softer, seals a lot friendlier, and weather offering a lot more windows of opportunity if you pick the right time of year. Despite my notoriety for rough water paddling, I'm in the game for the long-haul. When the level of risk exceeds that parameter, I usually back off, but the reasons are different than why most would back-off. I've had many days where I refuse to paddle, even though it wasn't that bad. I knew my attitude was bad that day - I was feeling *too* invincible, and knew there was a potential for trouble, so didn't want to tempt fate when conditions deteriorated. There are few conditions I won't paddle in, and that is the problem. That's when I back off - when I most *want* to go out and challenge nature. On our April 99 Storm Island rescue trip, one buddy went hypothermic in the gale, the other was exhausted and falling asleep. I was just starting to have fun. See what I mean? The next day, I felt like I could conquer the world. I took the rest of the year off paddling. (BTW, the Storm Island report is on hold with SK Magazine due to one of the individuals still getting over the trauma and stigma). Well, I hope this all makes sense and has some relevance to someone. Sounding too self-important -- gotta go! BC'in Ya Doug Lloyd >-- >Dave Kruger >Astoria, OR >not accepting much risk these days > > *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
<<Doug" Well, yeah. Its all a matter of degree. I was just concerned because Dave said in an earlier post about bellboy (spelling intentional), not to be too hard on the guy, that Dave could see himself accidently getting himself in to a similar situation. No, I don't think so. This guy was way over the edge for normal. I take a lot of risks, but I do it with my eyes wide open (well, most of the time). I don't have a rivers edge to crawl up too and get back in the kayak. To me, this guy just didn't fit into any normal category. He has a right to be out there. I'm not opposed to that. Especially not me. I just felt he was a loose cannon in a sport where we all take aim at certain activities and levels of risk; that most of us know what kind of skill and equipment we need to have to undertake said activity in a manner commensurate with typical customs.>> I know I'm REALLY new to kayaking, like about 8 months, but I'm getting a bit lost in the logic. I did read the piece and I didn't see where it gave enough details to come to a lot of the conclusions I'm reading. I'm not suggesting that he didn't make mistakes that could have been avoided but why are you calling him, " a loose cannon in a sport where we all take aim at certain activities and levels of risk?" For me, part of being new is not knowing all the questions and not knowing all the factors when they look you in the face. What am I missing here? I still don't know exactly why he couldn't get back in his boat. For someone with his exposure to the sport this seems exceptionally weird. Was it a lack of skills or was he hurt or what? I agree he made a number of mistakes but the one that seems to be picked on most is that he went out at all. Am I misreading this? The longer this thread runs the more confused I am. I am gaining no clarity on the issue thought I am seeing a lot of opinions. It could be I'm making this issue more complicated than it is but it looks REAL complicated from my computer. I've read the SK article on risk assessment and all the postings here. I still don't get why some of you are so harsh in you evaluation. It may be justified but so far I have not heard a logical argument for saying, "This guy was way over the edge for normal. " In real simple, short thoughts, can someone explain this to me, please? Joan *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
on 11/11/99 4:10 AM, 735769 at 735769_at_ican.net wrote: > 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. John gets it! We do the things we do for the thrill of cheating Death thru' personal skill and knowledge. This applies to all kinds of things from sky diving, thru' skiing, SCUBA, motorcycling, rollerblading, bicycling, etc. Anybody here remember the FEAR of the very first time you were on a bicycle? Those of us with good sense and good survival instincts maximize knowledge and skills. We also use safety equipment to minimize the damage when the knowledge and skills are not sufficient to the moment. But we do this stuff for the adrenaline rush of that moment of fear, and the feeling of competence that comes with doing the activity successfully. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Flory, San Jose, CA. daflory_at_pacbell.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speak softly and study Aikido, then you won't need a big stick. ©1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
<John Winters wrote:> > >Great idea if I can figure out how to do it using my rotten math skills. >Does anyone out there remember the classic chaos type of formula? Is it n = >n ^(1-n) or is it x --> x2 + c? Maybe neither one. > >One problem. It may breed so much paranoia and uncertainty that no one will >ever paddle again. HMMM Maybe not a problem at all. :) That's it! By George I think he's got it! I've think you've stumbled onto the Final Solution, John! We had (1) risk homeostasis, which alone proved unsatisfying to some; too narrow a view perhaps. Then (2) chaos was added; an excellent addition, expanding the definition and gaining more supporters. We're making real progress, I thought. And NOW(!) (3) you've added the third and final element: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. FUD! The final missing link! (I'm sure we can soon agree on measuring chaos and FUD.) It's THREE, don't you see, a triangle, a holy trinity... a pyramid even, some will think. For surely the three-element FUD factor gives it overall a three dimensional structure, don't you think? This could bring the last of the heathen unbelievers around. My God, I'm so excited! ;-) -Bruce who's been enjoying this immensely, and who's only partly kidding about the FUD factor. If FUD's a factor on any given day, it could actually be THE deciding factor in the accident that came to pass. It's probably a poor strategy to push one's personal envelope, whatever that may mean to one, when FUD has awakened. Go paddle somewhere else for the day, and put FUD back to sleep again. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> From: Joan Spinner <JSpinner_at_agu.org> <snip> > The longer this thread runs the more confused I am. I am gaining > no clarity on the issue thought I am seeing a lot of opinions. It could > be I'm making this issue more complicated than it is but it looks REAL > complicated from my computer. I've read the SK article on risk assessment > and all the postings here. I still don't get why some of you are so harsh in > you evaluation. It may be justified but so far I have not heard a logical > argument for saying, "This guy was way over the edge for normal. " > In real simple, short thoughts, can someone explain this to me, please? I'm somewhat confused, also. I thought the discussion involved two different incidents. For those that want to read the newspaper report again, it has been moved to http://www.portland.com/frnews/kayak1105.shtml He did take a lot of precautions where a lot of folks do not that could possibly have saved his life (the float plan, pfd, and wearing a wetsuit for cold water conditions spring to mind). Also, I'm not clear on how rough the seas were in which he first started out. There was mention of 6 to 8 foot seas but I assumed that to mean swells which are not difficult to paddle (though lots of fun :-) I suspect conditions worsened for which he was not prepared, but I'm not sure I would describe him as a loose cannon. Just my .02 Cheers, Jackie *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Joan wrote: > I know I'm REALLY new to kayaking, like about 8 months, but I'm getting a bit >lost in the logic. I did read the piece and I didn't see where it gave enough >details to come to a lot of the conclusions I'm reading. Joan, et al: Lost in the logic, or is that lost in the *lack* of logic? Maybe it is just the way I explain things. As far as conclusions from the details we were provided with, you are correct. Subjective opinions rendered on the incident are assumptive at best. I was hoping Dr Sutherland might get back to me about calling the fellow up who spent the night on the bellbouy, so we could find out the details that the media weren't interested in (type of kayak, type of paddling normally done, etc), but Chuck seems to have flown the coupe. > I'm not suggesting that >he didn't make mistakes that could have been avoided but why are you calling him, >" a loose cannon in a sport where we all take aim at certain activities and levels >of risk?" For me, part of being new is not knowing all the questions and not >knowing all the factors when they look you in the face. What am I missing here? I >still don't know exactly why he couldn't get back in his boat. For someone with >his exposure to the sport this seems exceptionally weird. Was it a lack of skills >or was he hurt or what? I agree he made a number of mistakes but the one that >seems to be picked on most is that he went out at all. Am I misreading this? Yes. You are misreading this from my point of view. He can go out, no problemo. But, don't you think given the conditions present and what the consequences could be of coming out of the kayak, he should have been with another paddler or better prepared or better equipped. The Coast Guard, universally, don't usually mind going out to help mariners in distress - that is what they get paid to do, and that is what they are there for, and they know that going out on the ocean is always a calculated risk where misscalculations are made . But, again, universally, the Coast Guard very much dislike evening and night searches. It puts there men more at risk, and when the object of their search has no way of signaling the authorities, it is very frustrating. > The longer this thread runs the more confused I am. I am gaining no clarity on >the issue thought I am seeing a lot of opinions. It could be I'm making this issue >more complicated than it is but it looks REAL complicated from my computer. I've >read the SK article on risk assessment and all the postings here. I still don't >get why some of you are so harsh in you evaluation. It may be justified but so far >I have not heard a logical argument for saying, "This guy was way over the edge >for normal. " > In real simple, short thoughts, can someone explain this to me, please? I suggest you go to the recent thread with Ralph (he writes with more clarity than anyone on this list, I'd say). The issue came up about acceptable behavior, if I can use that term. We have a helmet law here in BC, for both bicycles and motor bikes. I work in the medical field - government funded medicare - and I think it is the best thing that ever happened (sorry James). When I see a bicyclist go by at night, without a helmet, without a light, I call them loose cannons. When I see a roller bladder without protective equipment threading through traffic, the same response is invoked. And when I hear of a paddler out alone is nasty condition without the normal requisite gear, experience, training, and immediate assistance of fellow paddlers, the same response is invoked. If you "don't get it" fine, you don't have to. But please try and understand my point of view, as I don't just post off the top of my head. I'm not sure what your level of understanding is with the various kayak pursuits. In river kayaking, we are not loaded down with self sufficient rescue equipment. There is a car at the put-in and the take-out. You have friends along with you. If you bail in average conditions, you get to shore and get back in - no paddle floats, no re-enter and rolls, no VHF radios calling for help. Surfing, same thing. Minimum gear, lee shore beach waiting for you. Now switch to an estuarian river mouth. Current flowing out to sea, waves and wind present, paddler has no reliable re-entry, no back-up equipment, no buddies, and no distress equipment. What is he? A minimalist river paddler out over his head? A sea kayaker under-equipped and undertrained, and unaware of how dangerous and predisposed to disaster the situation was? I don't have the all the answers, Joan. But something doesn't jive with the situation, that's all. Am I permitted to say that? If not, I will shut-up. I'm happy to have a dialogue with myself. And maybe I will even switch the term "loose cannon" to "an unknown paddler profile" that to me doesn't fit into an "acceptable" acceptable risk category. That ain't confusing to me, anyway. BC'in Ya Doug Lloyd *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> When I see a roller > bladder without protective equipment threading through traffic, the same > response is invoked. Let us use the correct term 'in-line skater' so we don't have such mistakes;-> Just as a sidenote, in my skating experience beginners and advanced were safely equiped. It was the intermediate that negelected wearing safey gear. I would never skate without a helmet and wristguards, tore a helmet up in one crash- did break (or rebreak from the first)ribs a few times. Seems like a little (or very little) knowledge is a very bad thing. Maybe there should be a factor for this- as I get more experienced, I see more potential for mishap, a shift from the fear factor. -- : : Gabriel L Romeu : http://studiofurniture.com furniture from the workshop : http://members.xoom.com/gabrielR life as a tourist, daily journal : http://users.aol.com/romeugp paintings, photographs, etchings, objects *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Regarding my recent post/reply to Joan Spinner: Sorry if I came across kind of terse. I wasn't meaning to. I just get upset when people do dumb things kayaking - when it is so blatantly and patently obvious that what they were attempting to do would have been so much safer and more fun with a little thought and attendant conformity to sport standards. I should have maybe called the young kayaker who spent the night on the bellbouy as "atypical" rather than "a loose cannon". I also believe sea kayaking and white water kayaking and surf kayaking all compliment each other. Some of the WW boys (and gals!) around here do some incredible things out in the tidal rapids with their WW kayaks. We have genuine 15 foot standing waves just off Victoria during New Moon tides combined with a big storm. They play a hybrid game, often carrying some sea kayak type gear and even spare paddles (CG requirement) in their short WW kayaks. One fellow even tows his WW boat out to Trial Island behind hit sea kayak, then goes out in his WW boat to have some solo fun. The sea kayak makes it a lot easier to get out there in a big blow. I do a lot of rough water stuff, solo, in my sea kayak, but carry more kinds of back-up self-rescue equipment than you can buy in any one given outdoors store. I tether ALL my gear, including me. I practice paddling my kayak fully swamped in storm conditions, and practice re-entry and rolls all winter long. In summer, I often spend a whole days on consecutive weekends at the lake, just doing different kinds of self rescues. I do use pools, but I feel they foster a false sense of control - but necessary in frozen winter areas where you want to keep tuned up. I'm not saying this for any self-aggrandizement. I only want to clearly indicate that if you are going to go out solo in rough stuff, you better put in the training, and then overtrain for the chaos factor. I can't tell anyone what their list of essential gear should be. I know what I want. And I know you don't take more chances just because you have extra gear. But I go out anyway, can't control myself some years, so I carry what I believe is responsible for me to carry. I'd rather be hooked on tide races and storm paddling, and blow away some time on Paddlewise at night, than some of the other addictions in life - not to mention the soul-robbing garbage some people are into on the internet. Anyway, I thank you all for listening to me rant some days. I've put a lot of miles on my kayak in a huge variety of situations and circumstances, some life and death, some profound and mysteriously beautiful. And still, with all that paddling experience, I learn an incredible amount off this list every week. "Symposium" means to learn. PW is a none-stop symposium. Thanks! BC'in Ya Doug Lloyd At 12:18 PM 11/11/99 -0800, you wrote: >Joan wrote: >> I know I'm REALLY new to kayaking, like about 8 months, but I'm >getting a bit >>lost in the logic. I did read the piece and I didn't see where it gave enough >>details to come to a lot of the conclusions I'm reading. > >Joan, et al: > >Lost in the logic, or is that lost in the *lack* of logic? Maybe it is just >the way I explain things. As far as conclusions from the details we were >provided with, you are correct. Subjective opinions rendered on the >incident are assumptive at best. I was hoping Dr Sutherland might get back >to me about calling the fellow up who spent the night on the bellbouy, so >we could find out the details that the media weren't interested in (type of >kayak, type of paddling normally done, etc), but Chuck seems to have flown >the coupe. > >> I'm not suggesting that >>he didn't make mistakes that could have been avoided but why are you >calling him, >>" a loose cannon in a sport where we all take aim at certain activities >and levels >>of risk?" For me, part of being new is not knowing all the questions and not >>knowing all the factors when they look you in the face. What am I missing >here? I >>still don't know exactly why he couldn't get back in his boat. For someone >with >>his exposure to the sport this seems exceptionally weird. Was it a lack of >skills >>or was he hurt or what? I agree he made a number of mistakes but the one that >>seems to be picked on most is that he went out at all. Am I misreading this? > >Yes. You are misreading this from my point of view. He can go out, no >problemo. But, don't you think given the conditions present and what the >consequences could be of coming out of the kayak, he should have been with >another paddler or better prepared or better equipped. The Coast Guard, >universally, don't usually mind going out to help mariners in distress - >that is what they get paid to do, and that is what they are there for, and >they know that going out on the ocean is always a calculated risk where >misscalculations are made . But, again, universally, the Coast Guard very >much dislike evening and night searches. It puts there men more at risk, >and when the object of their search has no way of signaling the >authorities, it is very frustrating. > >> The longer this thread runs the more confused I am. I am gaining no >clarity on >>the issue thought I am seeing a lot of opinions. It could be I'm making >this issue >>more complicated than it is but it looks REAL complicated from my >computer. I've >>read the SK article on risk assessment and all the postings here. I still >don't >>get why some of you are so harsh in you evaluation. It may be justified >but so far >>I have not heard a logical argument for saying, "This guy was way over the >edge >>for normal. " >> In real simple, short thoughts, can someone explain this to me, please? > >I suggest you go to the recent thread with Ralph (he writes with more >clarity than anyone on this list, I'd say). The issue came up about >acceptable behavior, if I can use that term. We have a helmet law here in >BC, for both bicycles and motor bikes. I work in the medical field - >government funded medicare - and I think it is the best thing that ever >happened (sorry James). When I see a bicyclist go by at night, without a >helmet, without a light, I call them loose cannons. When I see a roller >bladder without protective equipment threading through traffic, the same >response is invoked. And when I hear of a paddler out alone is nasty >condition without the normal requisite gear, experience, training, and >immediate assistance of fellow paddlers, the same response is invoked. If >you "don't get it" fine, you don't have to. But please try and understand >my point of view, as I don't just post off the top of my head. > >I'm not sure what your level of understanding is with the various kayak >pursuits. In river kayaking, we are not loaded down with self sufficient >rescue equipment. There is a car at the put-in and the take-out. You have >friends along with you. If you bail in average conditions, you get to shore >and get back in - no paddle floats, no re-enter and rolls, no VHF radios >calling for help. Surfing, same thing. Minimum gear, lee shore beach >waiting for you. Now switch to an estuarian river mouth. Current flowing >out to sea, waves and wind present, paddler has no reliable re-entry, no >back-up equipment, no buddies, and no distress equipment. What is he? A >minimalist river paddler out over his head? A sea kayaker under-equipped >and undertrained, and unaware of how dangerous and predisposed to disaster >the situation was? I don't have the all the answers, Joan. But something >doesn't jive with the situation, that's all. Am I permitted to say that? If >not, I will shut-up. I'm happy to have a dialogue with myself. And maybe I >will even switch the term "loose cannon" to "an unknown paddler profile" >that to me doesn't fit into an "acceptable" acceptable risk category. That >ain't confusing to me, anyway. > >BC'in Ya >Doug Lloyd > > >*************************************************************************** >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/ >*************************************************************************** > > *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:05 PDT