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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:05 PDT