nimbusgb wrote:
I spent 30 years in South Africa, this Easter long weekend will have
cost between 1500 and 2000 lives on the road down there. I still lost
more people in 'hobbies' than road accidents in all the time I was
there and that includes the 2 that I lost to armed car hijacks.

The thing to remember is that a car wreck is infrequently fatal and
quite often little more than mentally traumatic. Aircraft crashes,
scuba accidents, man overboard and freefall parachute failures tend to
be a little less forgiving than the padded, belted, ABS, ESP and crush
zone protected vehicles that we drive.

I dont want this thread to get out of hand, I am not some super safety
concious nutter. I honestly think that the health and safety regs in
the UK are right over the top and that people should accept more
responsibility for their own lives.

I do believe that you have to either '**** or get off the pot'. How can
you call something an 'extreme' sport and then say that its safer than
driving! Exteme is 'out of the ordinary' and driving is what millions
of 'ordinary' people do every day.

Extreme sports are a marketing ploy. The label "Extreme" sells. Extreme
sports are not neccesarily extreme because of the risk but frequently
because of the effort and level of difficulty. Think ultra marathons,
extreme fighting, the Tour de France, or the Vendee Globe. On the other
hand, anything can be "extreme" if you take great uncalculated risks,
including driving. Those guys never live long and frequently don't win
at what ever they are doing.

I agree that the biggest risk most people take every day is driving. I
have lots of friends who have been injured and some killed involving
cars. On the other hand, I have had none killed in the pursuit of
sports yet. Sometimes they get a little banged up but "bones heal and
chicks love scars". Dying playing a sport is stupid. Of course I hang
with sensible, intelligent folks. Can't say the same for them though.

Gary
Still skiing, climbing, sailing, kayaking, yadda yadda yadda..... at an
extreme age!

"Gary" wrote in message
news:4Zx0g.28111$7a.2295@pd7tw1no...
I agree that the biggest risk most people take every day is driving. I
have lots of friends who have been injured and some killed involving cars.
On the other hand, I have had none killed in the pursuit of sports yet.
Sometimes they get a little banged up but "bones heal and chicks love
scars". Dying playing a sport is stupid. Of course I hang with sensible,
intelligent folks. Can't say the same for them though.
Gary

Seems different people perceive risk differently. I too have lost far more
friends and aquaintances in flying/gliding accidents plus quite a few with
permanent spine and/or leg damage, than in motor accidents, including
several years when I was competing in motor sport and the 60's when we
rarely bothered wearing crash helmets on bikes. I've now got to the age
where most friends are falling off their perches with cancer or heart
attacks.

Graham.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 20:40:32 UTC, Gary wrote:

: I agree that the biggest risk most people take every day is driving.

Doesn't come close to smoking ... though I grant you that's not most
people any more.

About 3000 people in the UK die in road accidents each year. Assuming
that almost all the population uses roads in some way, that;s 3000 out
of 60 million, which is 1 in 20000. Of the 5000 or so glider pilopts
in the UK, about 5 die flying annually which gives a death rate per
annum of 1 in 1000.

However ...

1) A significant number of the gliding deaths occur for natural
reasons. The medical requirements are less onerous than for power
flying and pilots with conditions which disbar them from power may
choose gliding instead. This means gliding is safer than the
comparison above might suggest

2) Most glider pilots spend much less time in the air (around 20 hours
per annum on average) than road users spend on roads (average mileage
is 10000 or so, which at 50 mph is 200 hours). This means glding is
more dangerous than the comparison above might suggest.

I don't see any point in pretending that flying, sailing and so on are
"safe" activities. For a start, there is no such thing as a "safe"
activity, and these hobbies are without doubt much more dangerous
than, say, rambling or golf. However ...

1) That still doesn't mean they are particularly dangerous

2) The odds can be improved greatly by not being plain bloody stupid.
The British Gliding Association publishes accident reports, and from
those it's quite clear that "being plain bloody stupid" is the
principal cause of most accidents.

3) What the hell. You're a long time looking at the lid.

Ian
--

Ian Johnston wrote:

About 3000 people in the UK die in road accidents each year. Assuming
that almost all the population uses roads in some way, that;s 3000 out
of 60 million, which is 1 in 20000.

If the average person lives to the age of 80, it follows that 1 in 80
of the population dies each year anyway (from all causes). Thus you'd
expect 1 in 700000 of the population to die in any hour.

If the average person spends 200 hours a year on the roads, you'd expect
1 in 3500 of the population to die on the roads each year (from all causes).

If in addition 1 in 20000 die from road accidents per year, this suggests
6 in 7 of all road deaths are non-accidental.

Of the 5000 or so glider pilopts
in the UK, about 5 die flying annually which gives a death rate per
annum of 1 in 1000.

You'd still expect 1 in 700k gliders to die each hour simply because they
are part of the general population. And if they spend 20 hours per year
in the air, you'd expect 1 in 35k of gliders to die in the air each year.
If in fact 1 in 1000 die in gliders each year, you'd expect only 1 in 35
air deaths to be non-accidental.

Doesn't that make gliding 30 times as dangerous as being on the road?

In article ,
ldomain says...


Doesn't that make gliding 30 times as dangerous as being on the road?

On an hourly participation basis, that is probably reasonable.

When I used to glide, I once worked out that for an under-40 male, being
a driver roughly doubled your annual mortality risk, and gliding roughly
doubled it again. But on a hourly basis, gliding is certainly more risky
than driving.

When I used to glide, I once worked out that for an under-40
male, being
a driver roughly doubled your annual mortality risk, and gliding
roughly
doubled it again. But on a hourly basis, gliding is certainly
more risky
than driving.

OK. Did some research from US statistics, causality alone, 2002,
all within 20% (cos I'm a back of an envelope person first time
round):
-------------------------------------

Cars.

38,000 deaths pa, (10 times as many injuries).
15 per 100,000 population (UK, about 7/100,000)
1.5 per 100,000,000 miles
4.5 per 10,000,000 hours

Source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
--------------------------------------

Boats (12,000,000 - of which sail and Aux sail 40%)

Deaths pa 800 (5 times as many injuries)
0.25 per 100,000 of population
7 per 100,000 boats
2.8 per 10,000,000 hours (heroic assumption; 250hrs per boat pa)
However: sailboats are only 1% of deaths!

Source:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2002.pdf
---------------------------------------

General Aviation (220,000 aircraft, 30,000,000 hours flown)

Deaths pa 600 (1,800 accidents)
0.7 deaths per 100,000 population
270 deaths per 100,000 aircraft
200 deaths per 10,000,000 flying hours

Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/ARG0401.pdf
----------------------------------------------

First, don't shout about the detail. I said within 20%. Now, some
points of interest:

1. I'm very surprised that US stats show nearly twice as many
road deaths as UK per whatever. Also the small motor boat death
rates in US are far higher as a proportion than in UK.

2. I'm now quite clear why insurance rates for general aviation
are so high, and why boat insurance is similar to car insurance
rates.

3. I think on a per hour basis, car driving in UK is about quits
with boats, though sailboats may be safer! That would take more
research, and I'm in Easter Holiday trouble already.

4. None of this takes account of person to person skill
variations. Surveys have routinely shown that 80% of car drivers
believe that their skills are above the average, if not
exceptional. Pilots are similar. I've never asked sailors - just
examined them. So I've got a good idea what the average skill
levels of examinee sailors are - and they're the skilled minority.
My view is that the personal skill levels are not relevant to boat
safety - I think 'fear factor' is more important. Avoiding things
you can't do, or being very careful when trying them. Most boat
deaths are due to not wearing buoyancy aids, or being under the
affluence of incohol (see reference).
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:03:18 UTC, "News f2s"
wrote:

: 2. I'm now quite clear why insurance rates for general aviation
: are so high, and why boat insurance is similar to car insurance
: rates.

In the first case it's not just, or so much, the frequency of the
accidents, but the possible claims involved. Hit a 747 on the ground
in your Cessna and the bill can easily be tens of millions.

Ian

--

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-h1QXuVTzjBkd@localhost...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:03:18 UTC, "News f2s"
wrote:

: 2. I'm now quite clear why insurance rates for general
aviation
: are so high, and why boat insurance is similar to car
insurance
: rates.

In the first case it's not just, or so much, the frequency of
the
accidents, but the possible claims involved. Hit a 747 on the
ground
in your Cessna and the bill can easily be tens of millions.

Hmm. These actuaries are pretty bright at their numbers. How many
Cessnas have hit 747s? But I take your general point that
aviation accident costs are much higher per incident. To a degree
that's covered (in insurance terms) if your insurance rates are
charged as a percent of vehicle value.

Quite simply, if any individual GA aircraft has 40 times the
probability of killing someone per annum, I'd expect the premium
to be 40 times higher. Crude. So load by the average value damage
done (compared to a boat) which would be quite a lot higher, x10?
So I wouldn't be surprised to hear that boat insurance runs around
1% to 2% of craft value, while airplane insurance runs around 10%
of value. Roger Long would know if that's the right order - he's
instigated several threads suggesting that aviation insurance
rates may come to boats! Someone here would know.
--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:35:04 UTC, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
:
: About 3000 people in the UK die in road accidents each year. Assuming
: that almost all the population uses roads in some way, that;s 3000 out
: of 60 million, which is 1 in 20000.
:
: If the average person lives to the age of 80, it follows that 1 in 80
: of the population dies each year anyway (from all causes). Thus you'd
: expect 1 in 700000 of the population to die in any hour.

You'd expect that anyway, from the average lifespan being about
700,000 hours. But maybe that's what you meant?

: If the average person spends 200 hours a year on the roads, you'd expect
: 1 in 3500 of the population to die on the roads each year (from all causes).

You are assuming, though, that "being on the road" and "being likely
to die of natural causes" are independent, which is quite definitely
not the case. In addition, the 3,500 deaths per year does not, as far
as I am aware, count people who have heart attacks on buses and so on
- it's people who dies as a result of road accidents.

: If in addition 1 in 20000 die from road accidents per year, this suggests
: 6 in 7 of all road deaths are non-accidental.

.... and, as per above, not counted in the 3500.

: Of the 5000 or so glider pilopts
: in the UK, about 5 die flying annually which gives a death rate per
: annum of 1 in 1000.
:
: You'd still expect 1 in 700k gliders to die each hour simply because they
: are part of the general population.

Neither "being a glider pilot" nor "dying of natural causes" are
evenly distributed, and they are not independent. Would you expect 1
in 700,000 of both schoolchildren and octogenerians to die every hour?

: Doesn't that make gliding 30 times as dangerous as being on the road?

It's certainly a lot more dangerous, but I don't think your
statistical approach demonstrates how much more dangerous.

Ian

Gary,

I think an excellent book on this subject is "Deep Survival". It
discusses "who lives, who dies, and why" in regards to "extreme sports.
The arguments made in it are quite interesting and apply to this topic.

It seems that generally what kills people, more often than not, is poor
decision making, inadequate training/skill and improper preparation.
All of those qualities are just as applicable to driving as to sports.

I don't think the argument can be made "objectively" that driving is any
more or less dangerous than anything else unless you are willing to
theorize an individual who's training/skill, preparation and decision
making skills are objectively equal for each endeavor. Then comparing
that individual in each activity would make sense. The problem with
this is that measuring such things is almost always impossible.

Instead, people resort to statistics of entire populations. For
instance, mortality rates of bowling are significantly higher than
scuba. Why? Because more people who bowl are at greater risk of heart
attack and stroke. The sport itself is not really more dangerous, just
the population practicing it.

When one tends to look at the statistical averages, one ignores the
population's (and consequently the individual's) training/skill,
preparation and decision making abilities I think this isn't really a
"fair" comparison, but it does at least give you some relative sense of
the danger in terms of the population, which is what insurance agencies
(the folks who compile this information) really care about.

While I do believe that any activity has some danger (including driving)
I think more often than not the real level can not be truly,
scientifically determined for the individual. So, while boating may be
dangerous, whether it is more so than driving really comes down to who
is doing it at the time.

Robb



Gary wrote:
nimbusgb wrote:

I spent 30 years in South Africa, this Easter long weekend will have
cost between 1500 and 2000 lives on the road down there. I still lost
more people in 'hobbies' than road accidents in all the time I was
there and that includes the 2 that I lost to armed car hijacks.

The thing to remember is that a car wreck is infrequently fatal and
quite often little more than mentally traumatic. Aircraft crashes,
scuba accidents, man overboard and freefall parachute failures tend to
be a little less forgiving than the padded, belted, ABS, ESP and crush
zone protected vehicles that we drive.

I dont want this thread to get out of hand, I am not some super safety
concious nutter. I honestly think that the health and safety regs in
the UK are right over the top and that people should accept more
responsibility for their own lives.

I do believe that you have to either '**** or get off the pot'. How can
you call something an 'extreme' sport and then say that its safer than
driving! Exteme is 'out of the ordinary' and driving is what millions
of 'ordinary' people do every day.

Extreme sports are a marketing ploy. The label "Extreme" sells. Extreme
sports are not neccesarily extreme because of the risk but frequently
because of the effort and level of difficulty. Think ultra marathons,
extreme fighting, the Tour de France, or the Vendee Globe. On the other
hand, anything can be "extreme" if you take great uncalculated risks,
including driving. Those guys never live long and frequently don't win
at what ever they are doing.

I agree that the biggest risk most people take every day is driving. I
have lots of friends who have been injured and some killed involving
cars. On the other hand, I have had none killed in the pursuit of
sports yet. Sometimes they get a little banged up but "bones heal and
chicks love scars". Dying playing a sport is stupid. Of course I hang
with sensible, intelligent folks. Can't say the same for them though.

Gary
Still skiing, climbing, sailing, kayaking, yadda yadda yadda..... at an
extreme age!