>>I just finished reading the 32 page ACA study "CRITICAL JUDGMENT: >>THIS REPORT DOES NOT >>SEPERATE KAYAK DEATH BY WHITEWATER OR FLATWATER. >>50% of fatal kayak accidents occurred while wearing a PFD, 44% while not >>wearing a PFD (no explanation for the other 6%). When I first read this I thought, like you, that the numbers were probably skewed by the whitewater fatalities. I would sure like to see a study done of only sea kayaking related incidents. Unfortunately I do not know of any data base available for such a study --- or maybe I do! It occurred to me that I do have a collection of data, of sorts, in all of my back issues of "Sea Kayaker Magazine." Since the beginning SK has been putting out a safety column in which it regularly reports on sea kayaking mishaps. So on a whim I got out my back issues and went to work. While I have every issue of "Sea Kayaker Magazine," I'm afraid that my filing system leaves something to be desired, so I was unable to find seven issues. They are around someplace and will show up eventually, but in the meantime that leaves 87 issues for my "study." In those 87 issues I found 21 stories of kayaking fatalities. Of those 21 stories there were 5 fatalities of which it could not be determined from the article whether or not the victims were wearing pfd's. What I found among the remaining 20 fatalities really surprised me. There were 2 people who died, one in a floater suit, and another in a survival suit which is rated by the Coast Guard as a flotation device, without pfd's. While I personally would include these in the "with pfd" category, I recognize that someone could argue that technically they were not wearing a pfd, so I put them in a category by themselves labeled "other." Now the surprising part --- 8 people died without a pfd and 10 died while wearing one! If you crunch the numbers then you find that according to my SK survey, 50% died with the pfd, 40% died without and 10% are in the "other" category. So the question is, does my little SK survey accurately reflect what is happening in the world of sea kayaking? Probably not. But then again, my percentages are startlingly close to the ACA's findings of 50%, 44% and 6%! In both the ACA report and my own SK survey, which I would like to remind you deals only with sea kayaking related incidents, the percentage of people dying with their pfd on is higher then that of those who died without it! Why is that? While Steve may wax poetic about all of the people who are alive today as a result of being saved by their pfd's in a near miss, I would have to believe that if this was in fact the case then the numbers here would lean much more significantly towards the pfd's then they do. I find myself wondering if any, and how many, of the fatalities might have in fact occurred as the result of a swimmer being unable to reach shore, or even their own boat, as a result of their swimming efforts being impeded by the bulk of their own pfd. Or perhaps they chose not to attempt to make the swim to shore when that would have been the better option, having been seduced into believing that they were going to be OK since they were wearing their pfd. But of course neither my scenario's or Steve's are really worth any real consideration since they are both little more then groundless speculation. In putting together my SK survey I decided to concentrate only on the fatalities as I believe the near misses leave too many variables to be accounted for. For example, in Volume 2 Number 3 winter 1985 issue is a story of a husband and wife that capsized in a double. He was wearing a pfd and survived, while she was not wearing a pfd and died. While it would be easy to use this incident as proof of the effectiveness of pfd's, the details of the accident, I feel, seem to indicate that the woman may have succumb to sudden drowning syndrome, and could have ended up dead with or without a pfd on. There is no way we can know for sure. In another incident, Volume 6 Number 3 winter 1989/1990, two brothers capsized in a double. The first brother was believed to have removed his pfd after the capsize in order to better swim to shore - he didn't make it. Again, it would be very easy to suggest that he may have fared much better had he kept his pfd on. Of course it must be noted that the second brother was found dead as well --- wearing his pfd. So just what does this all mean? I really don't know. But I think it's all very interesting. I must point out, however, that it would seem that both the ACA report and my SK survey seem to support, at least on the surface, what I have been saying all along. That is, in my opinion, the effectiveness of pfd's in your typical sea kayaking scenario is greatly over rated. Scott So.Cal. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
[Moderator's Note: Content unaltered. Excessive quoting (i.e. headers/footers/sig lines/extraneous text from previous posts, etc.) have been removed. Please edit quoted material in addition to removing header/trailers when replying to posts.] Off course, the difficulty is deeper than that. It would also be necessary to know what percentage of the people who didn't die were wearing PFDs. In whitewater, it's VERY rare to see a kayaker without a PFD on. So I would imagine that the majority of deaths in ww would involve people wearing PFDs. In your sea Kayaker study, it would be interesting to know what percentage of "sea Kayakers" are wearing PFDs. If 85% of Kayakers are wearing them, and they only account for 56% of deaths, then it would suggest that you're better off with them that without... I'm not saying that the case, just that those numbers alone leave something to be desired when drawing conclusions about their effectiveness. I almost always wear mine in my seakayak. Always in the whitewater. Sometimes in the surf. Geoff Jennings 619-336-2444 800-322-SEDA geoff_at_sedakayak.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
At 09:17 PM 4/23/03 EDT, KiAyker_at_aol.com wrote: >>>I just finished reading the 32 page ACA study "CRITICAL JUDGMENT: (snip) > While Steve may wax poetic about all of the people who are alive today as >a result of being saved by their pfd's in a near miss, I would have to >believe that if this was in fact the case then the numbers here would lean >much more significantly towards the pfd's then they do. I find myself >wondering if any, and how many, of the fatalities might have in fact occurred >as the result of a swimmer being unable to reach shore, or even their own >boat, as a result of their swimming efforts being impeded by the bulk of >their own pfd. Or perhaps they chose not to attempt to make the swim to shore >when that would have been the better option, having been seduced into >believing that they were going to be OK since they were wearing their pfd. >But of course neither my scenario's or Steve's are really worth any real >consideration since they are both little more then groundless speculation. I read this over this morning and it's been bugging me all day. It strikes me that a lot of the real question lies buried in areas that just aren't reported. That's pretty obvious, but sort of begs the question -- is it politically correct to report the real facts? The point that bugs me concerns auto accidents and seat belts. A little off topic, perhaps, but bear with me. One of the downsides of my job running a weekly country newspaper is that I have to go to more personal injury (PI) accidents than I want to -- I've been to too many over the years. We had a couple horrific ones late last year, in which, in two separate accidents, people wearing seat belts were killed. In one case, the seat belt trapped a young kid in a burning vehicle, bringing a horrible and painful death. (Thank God I got there way late!) The other was a little more ambiguous, and I didn't go to that one at all, but the cops and EMTs I talked to off the record are pretty much of the opinion that the passenger might well have survived had they not been wearing a seat belt. But seat belts are good, right? The government tells us so. Why do they think so? Two or three times I've discussed similar incidents with the cops that write the accident report, and the only part on the reporting form that they have to fill out is whether the victim was wearing a seat belt or not. Whether it contributed to the fatality isn't a subject on the form -- so can't be easily pulled out from the reports. You have to dig into the reports themselves, or go to coroners reports and the like, and often then you don't get a clearcut figure. We had, if I recall correctly, 12 fatal auto accidents in this county last year. I don't know about the other accidents -- they were outside my coverage area -- but 17% of those deaths might have been prevented by NOT wearing a seat belt. But you'd face a hell of time trying to sell that observation against all the lobbyies and whiners and handwringers and bureaucrats that are convinced that they know what's best for you. Sure would be interesting to know how many boating/water fatalities could have been prevented by NOT wearing a PFD. -- Wes --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Boyd's Kayak Place NEW URL! -- http://www.kayakplace.com Kayaks for Big Guys (And Gals) | Trip Reports | Places To Go | Boats & Gear --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Wes Boyd wrote: (snippery) > The other was a little more ambiguous, > and I didn't go to that one at all, but the cops and EMTs I talked to off > the record are pretty much of the opinion that the passenger might well > have survived had they not been wearing a seat belt. > > But seat belts are good, right? The government tells us so. Why do they > think so? In analyses of large numbers of accidents, and injuries, seat belts are a net helper. They reduce mortality and morbidity. In some cases, they may increase injury. But in many more they reduce it. Few survive being ejected, but few are ejected if belted and belts save lives on that alone. Low speed accidents can kill unbelted occupants, but practically never belted ones. (I have often thought that if you are carjacked and he is unbleted, ram something at about 40-50 kph.) Statistically seatbelts save lives, but some very few times they take them. We have to go with saving many even if it might enhance the risk of the few, since all benefit equally from the statistical tradeoff. Rear seat passengers ought to be belted too. Was a well-publicised accident 20-odd yrs ago: 2 couples, guys in front with belts, wives in back without. Frontal impact. Guys snap ahead on belts and rebound to their seats just as unbelted wives are being catapulted forward and decapitate both men. Yuck. BTW, it is important to wear belts on hip-bones and not soft abdomen. > Sure would be interesting to know how many boating/water fatalities could > have been prevented by NOT wearing a PFD. In whitewater the usual thought AIUI is that without you might be able to swim under a downed tree that is straining the flow (iff it has no branches underwater to snag you and drown you for sure) or dive out of a hydraulic if you can dive deep to the downstream flow. Otherwise, the PFD helps. I suppose in some cases you might be able to paddle faster without, and thus reach safety from a sorm or larege vessel. You might be cooler and not suffer heatstroke or dehydration, but those are as extreme as the other situations, and we hear of few fatalities due to these causes. GaryJ -- Director, Family Canoeing Centre Recreational canoeing courses for the whole family. +--------------------------------+ | /"\ | | \ / | | X ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN | | / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL & NEWS | +--------------------------------+ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:33 PDT