| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Many discussions on these fora hinge around how safe, or unsafe,
some activity or process is. Very often two points of view emerge; one based on a personal experience, and the other based on reports of incidents. These discussions sometimes descend into personal attacks - if you can't win the argument, question your opponent's integrity, intelligence, skill, whatever. You can't argue with the emotional impact that a personal experience creates. For that person it's a fact, an event of high probability. The population as a whole has to stand back and accept this - then look dispassionately at the stats. There is a useful tool in UK to help get a perspective on safety matters - that's the record of accidents kept from 1979 until 2002 in UK at a group of major hospitals, then extended to national probabilities. I'm sure there are more sources, just as good or better. But the UK 2002 report is at: http://www.hassandlass.org.uk/query/...s/2002data.pdf Before you load it, bear in mind it's about 70 pages of pdf - that's killerbites if you're tied to 56k modem. In that case you may choose to play around in the RoSPA web site to access the databases directly (Google it). The data link thousands of equipments with hospitalising injuries in 2002. Examples: Sailboard (all) - 472 Water Scooter - 185 (well , it was 2002) Oars and Rowlocks - 103 Mast, sail and rig - 267 All types of boats - 2,932 Quad bikes, ATVs - 4,346 And to put this in perspective, these are part of a total of about 5,500,000 hospitalising accidents a year. So, 1/10 of us can expect a hospitalising accident each year. Now, what this doesn't do is say how many people participated how much in the various activities. Otherwise you'd determine that the least safe thing to do is to wear a shoe (linked to hundreds of thousands of injuries). Nor does it say what might have happened if you didn't use that particular item. I mean, if I didn't sail, would I be rushing off on my PWC for some thrills instead? In UK I suppose 50,000,000 wear shoes 50% of their lives, whilst 3,000,000 people spend 5% of their time on boats. So, 1/1,000 boaters suffer an injury each year (and that injury occurs during a two week/336 hour window for most). So, there's only a 1/100 chance that my hospitalising injury will be due to boating. Now, Martin is very good at digging out relevant websites, so he'll probably find a site which does all this tedious calculating for us. But in a few days I'm off to Greece to continue my search for off-beat bars and restaurants. Sadly I won't be able to reap all the benefit of his research - just the next few days worth! Back in August -- JimB http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/ Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
The most dangerous part of any "dangerous sport", whether sailing,
scuba-diving, climbing etc, is driving in your car to get there.... |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
The most dangerous part of any "dangerous sport", whether sailing,
scuba-diving, climbing etc, is driving in your car to get there.... I always reminded myself of that as I was in my car on the way to Langar or Netheravon to go skydiving, but found that sailing gave a different feeling, and for much longer than a 50 second freefall. Having decided to stick with sailing (Read as: allocate my disposable income to sailing, not skydiving) I revel in the fact that no-one MAKES me wear my lifejacket, etc. Whatever, it is worth the risk and money to lurch beerily around the Solent, even if I do have to take my life into my hands everytime I want to get to the sailing club! Artie |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
The most dangerous part of any "dangerous sport", whether sailing,
scuba-diving, climbing etc, is driving in your car to get there.... major_rant At the risk of being 'kill filed' by many ......... I have to take issue with this, it's the dumbest, most ill informed stupid statement anyone could use in connection with any even partially 'extreme' sport. In my nearly 50 years I am thankful that I can count the number of friends, colleagues, relatives and aquaintances killed in motor accidents on the fingers of my hands. Sure a few have spent periods recuperating from severe injury and I dodged the bullet once or twice in my youth including having driven into a moving train at high speed. I walked away! The same cannot be said of the sports I have participated in, I have, on average known at least one person for each of my nearly 50 years that has been killed whilst participating in a 'hobby'. Gliding, Power flying, Sailing and a few other assorted sports I dont participate in have all claimed an uncomfortable number from those I have known. Their skill levels at their chosen pastime ranged from novice to vastly experienced, like the pilot with over 20000 hours of gliding time. These people 'participated' for only a couple of hours on the weekends whilst they spent many, many times that in their cars. In my 1000 plus hours of gliding I have had at least 3 'close calls' with the grim reaper and I have been present and witnessesed several untimely deaths. I spend about 500 hours a year in my car and I can honestly say ( touch wood ) that in spite of having an extremely heavy foot I have not had a serious scare in the past 10 years and possibly 200 000 miles of motoring. The risks of participation in any extreme sport are not insignificant and anyone who quotes the above statement to someone new to such a sport could well be exposing themselves to future litigation. At the very least they are doing their sport a disservice. Each of us has a moving threshold for 'adventurism', adrenaline, risk or whatever you call it. Your risk tolerance is probably at its maximum when at 18 you aquire your first car, its at the opposite end of the scale when you have just watched your first born take his or her first breaths. Everyone must balance their own current risk profile and it is unfair to fob anyone off with this lame statement. Dont ever try to fool anyone that your pastime is safer than driving. Be honest about the risks but explain how you balance the risks through a degree of legislation ( like the colregs ), education, practice, process and how the really intelligent few welcome and even invite constructive criticism. When someone questions your participation in the face of the risks you have outlined you simply explain, to paraphrase, 'you don't do it to escape life, you do it to make sure life doesn't escape you.' \major_rant Ian |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
"nimbusgb" wrote in message oups.com... The most dangerous part of any "dangerous sport", whether sailing, scuba-diving, climbing etc, is driving in your car to get there.... major_rant At the risk of being 'kill filed' by many ......... I have to take issue with this, it's the dumbest, most ill informed stupid statement anyone could use in connection with any even partially 'extreme' sport. snip long rant Surely anything can be dangerous if you do it stupidly enough? What's the point in getting steamed up about it? |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Not steamed, just an opinion!
:) |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
"nimbusgb" wrote in message I have to take issue with this, it's the dumbest, most ill informed stupid statement anyone could use in connection with any even partially 'extreme' sport. Naughty. You're (indirectly) attacking the writer, not his arguments In my nearly 50 years I am thankful that I can count the number of friends, colleagues, relatives and aquaintances killed in motor snip Gliding, Power flying, Sailing and a few other assorted sports I dont participate in have all claimed an uncomfortable number from those I big snip These are your personal experiences and knowledge. They have formed your views, which have probably been hardened over the years. But stop and think a bit . . . Data is available to check whether your views are valid for the population as a whole. I've shown one source - in UK. But if Ric was a resident in Greece, where road accident rates are some 20 times worse than in UK per car/kilometre, perhaps he's entitled to that view? (I don't know the US relative rates). -- JimB http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/ Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
"News f2s" wrote in message ... "nimbusgb" wrote in message I have to take issue with this, it's the dumbest, most ill informed stupid statement anyone could use in connection with any even partially 'extreme' sport. Naughty. You're (indirectly) attacking the writer, not his arguments In my nearly 50 years I am thankful that I can count the number of friends, colleagues, relatives and aquaintances killed in motor snip Gliding, Power flying, Sailing and a few other assorted sports I dont participate in have all claimed an uncomfortable number from those I big snip These are your personal experiences and knowledge. They have formed your views, which have probably been hardened over the years. But stop and think a bit . . . Data is available to check whether your views are valid for the population as a whole. I've shown one source - in UK. But if Ric was a resident in Greece, where road accident rates are some 20 times worse than in UK per car/kilometre, perhaps he's entitled to that view? (I don't know the US relative rates). -- JimB http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/ Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas There is data also which show that more people die in bed than anywhere else. Surely they should carry a warning? As should hospitals, where lots of people die. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
"nimbusgb" wrote in message oups.com... The most dangerous part of any "dangerous sport", whether sailing, scuba-diving, climbing etc, is driving in your car to get there.... major_rant At the risk of being 'kill filed' by many ......... I have to take issue with this, it's the dumbest, most ill informed stupid statement anyone could use in connection with any even partially 'extreme' sport. In my nearly 50 years I am thankful that I can count the number of friends, colleagues, relatives and aquaintances killed in motor accidents on the fingers of my hands. Sure a few have spent periods recuperating from severe injury and I dodged the bullet once or twice in my youth including having driven into a moving train at high speed. I walked away! The same cannot be said of the sports I have participated in, I have, on average known at least one person for each of my nearly 50 years that has been killed whilst participating in a 'hobby'. Gliding, Power flying, Sailing and a few other assorted sports I dont participate in have all claimed an uncomfortable number from those I have known. Their skill levels at their chosen pastime ranged from novice to vastly experienced, like the pilot with over 20000 hours of gliding time. These people 'participated' for only a couple of hours on the weekends whilst they spent many, many times that in their cars. In my 1000 plus hours of gliding I have had at least 3 'close calls' with the grim reaper and I have been present and witnessesed several untimely deaths. I spend about 500 hours a year in my car and I can honestly say ( touch wood ) that in spite of having an extremely heavy foot I have not had a serious scare in the past 10 years and possibly 200 000 miles of motoring. Well I lead an adventurous life as a sprog in the army, still regularly freefall parachute, fly planes, sail my boat, go solo scuba-diving, go solo ski-touring, - but to me my most dangerous perceived activity is driving my car - because I have to rely on the competence of others, whereas in individual adventure sports I rely only on myself. I have far more scary moments driving on a motorway due to totally incompetent manouvres by idiots than I ever have sailing/climbing/parachuting/sailing where I can rely entirely on my own preparation and planning. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
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. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
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! |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
"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. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Ric,
For what it is worth, I agree with you. Cars are scary because you have to rely on others. In the US most of those "others" have no more "training" than I do, which is to say none. Diving, on the other hand, involves substantial training and I am usually diving with someone with a similar level of training. One can argue the basis for establishing safety "statistics". Commercial airflight is far safer than cars right? But those statistics are based on a "per mile" basis. When viewed on a per trip basis cars and airplanes are much closer together. Pick your stat to make your point, each is valid in its own right. But neither is "better" or "righter" than the other. Perhaps one should view safety from a different basis, based upon a risk /reward assignment - r/r. Once upon a time I drove for fun, no more, it scares me and is boring. My reward is zero so my r/r = infinite. If I scuba dive my risk if finite and get great reward so my r/r = acceptable. Ditto sailing. Ditto hunting. I tried skiing. At my advanced age (50+)the risk of debilitating damage is greater than I care to take. So I don't do it, my r/r is to high. This is subjective, but so are all of life's value judgments. If you love driving, have at it. Howard Ric wrote: "nimbusgb" wrote in message oups.com... The most dangerous part of any "dangerous sport", whether sailing, scuba-diving, climbing etc, is driving in your car to get there.... major_rant At the risk of being 'kill filed' by many ......... I have to take issue with this, it's the dumbest, most ill informed stupid statement anyone could use in connection with any even partially 'extreme' sport. In my nearly 50 years I am thankful that I can count the number of friends, colleagues, relatives and aquaintances killed in motor accidents on the fingers of my hands. Sure a few have spent periods recuperating from severe injury and I dodged the bullet once or twice in my youth including having driven into a moving train at high speed. I walked away! The same cannot be said of the sports I have participated in, I have, on average known at least one person for each of my nearly 50 years that has been killed whilst participating in a 'hobby'. Gliding, Power flying, Sailing and a few other assorted sports I dont participate in have all claimed an uncomfortable number from those I have known. Their skill levels at their chosen pastime ranged from novice to vastly experienced, like the pilot with over 20000 hours of gliding time. These people 'participated' for only a couple of hours on the weekends whilst they spent many, many times that in their cars. In my 1000 plus hours of gliding I have had at least 3 'close calls' with the grim reaper and I have been present and witnessesed several untimely deaths. I spend about 500 hours a year in my car and I can honestly say ( touch wood ) that in spite of having an extremely heavy foot I have not had a serious scare in the past 10 years and possibly 200 000 miles of motoring. Well I lead an adventurous life as a sprog in the army, still regularly freefall parachute, fly planes, sail my boat, go solo scuba-diving, go solo ski-touring, - but to me my most dangerous perceived activity is driving my car - because I have to rely on the competence of others, whereas in individual adventure sports I rely only on myself. I have far more scary moments driving on a motorway due to totally incompetent manouvres by idiots than I ever have sailing/climbing/parachuting/sailing where I can rely entirely on my own preparation and planning. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
My dad still skiis regularly. He's 75. As you say, perception differs.
|
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
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 -- |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
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! |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
|
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Hardly surprising as they are full of beds. I think I can see a pattern
forming. There is data also which show that more people die in bed than anywhere else. Surely they should carry a warning? As should hospitals, where lots of people die. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
"Stefan" wrote in message .. . In article , says... For instance, mortality rates of bowling are significantly higher than scuba. Evidence? I seriously doubt that is actually the case. The statement also assumes causality. 'Mortality rates OF bowling' is not the same thing as 'mortality rates WHILST bowling'. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
"Rob Cullen" wrote in message ... Hardly surprising as they are full of beds. I think I can see a pattern forming. There is data also which show that more people die in bed than anywhere else. Surely they should carry a warning? As should hospitals, where lots of people die. Very often, Doctors and nurses are close at hand when people die. These people are clearly dangerous. Do you think the police should be notified? |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
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? |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
|
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
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 |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
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 |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:33:00 UTC, Stefan wrote:
: Not true of Nimbus's sport either (mine also at one time). There are : glider pilots who have been knocked out of the sky by other aircraft, : typically other gliders in crowded thermals. I knew an instructor at Portmoak (Scottish Gliding Union) who looked up once to see the mainwheel of a slowly overtaking glider less than two feet above his canopy. Thank goodness he had the presence of mind not to dive away... Ian -- |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Ric wrote:
The most dangerous part of any "dangerous sport", whether sailing, scuba-diving, climbing etc, is driving in your car to get there.... A curious statement - it almost seems reasonable. How does it apply to boating in general? There are about 180 million cars in the US, and 12 million registered boats, so the ratio is 15 to one. The number of boating fatalities is around 700, but this doesn't include drowning while swimming off a boat which is a substantial factor, so I will exercise some prerogative and call it an even 1000 deaths. There are 30000 auto related deaths, so that ratio is 30 to one. Thus, when counted by registered vehicles, auto fatalities are twice as frequent. However, the story gets muddied by the fact that human powered boats (canoes, kayaks, rowboats) are not registered in most situations, yet are involved in a substantial number of fatalities. This tends to make boating seem even safer, vehicle by vehicle. The bottom line is that if you have a car and a boat, you're more likely to die in the car. However, if you consider that most boaters only use a small portion of their driving time going to their boat, I would guess that on a given "boating day" the boating portion is more dangerous. There is a whole other side to this, however. Those of us with larger sailboats know that our boats are far, far safer than the small boats that seem to cause all the problems. For example, we have stays to hang onto when we pee overboard! Does this hold up? Auxiliary sailboats make up about 1.2% of the fleet, but were involved in only 1.2% of the fatalities. Hmmm. OK, well at least larger boats must safer: 4.6% of the registered fleet is over 26 feet, and 5% of the fatalities involved boats over 26 feet. Hmmm. One thing is clear when looking at the statistics: most deaths occur from "stupid" behavior. "Overall, carelessness/reckless operation, operator inattention, operator inexperience, and excessive speed are the leading contributing factors of all reported accidents." http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2004.pdf |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
In article , says...
There are about 180 million cars in the US, and 12 million registered boats, so the ratio is 15 to one. The number of boating fatalities is around 700, but this doesn't include drowning while swimming off a boat which is a substantial factor, so I will exercise some prerogative and call it an even 1000 deaths. There are 30000 auto related deaths, so that ratio is 30 to one. Both those accident rates are higher than the UK, whose population is around 25% of the USA. Boating deaths appear vastly higher in the USA. I wonder why? UK road deaths around 3200 in 2005 with 30M registered cars. Boat-related deaths: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group.../page/dft_foi_ 610522.pdf shows numbers reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Board. Incidents involving deaths, maybe half a dozen a year. http://www.rospa.com/waterandleisure...atersafety.htm lists 22 boating drownings in the UK in 2004. There is no legal requirement to register small craft in the UK so nobody knows how many there are. Also certainly several million. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
AMPowers wrote:
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 Good point, well articulated. I'll look for the book. Gary |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Both those accident rates are higher than the UK, whose population is around 25% of the USA. Boating deaths appear vastly higher in the USA. I wonder why? Nice to see a rational approach! Partly, US has a far more rigorous reporting system. Nearly half boat deaths occur in small rowboats and motorised fishing boats pottering around without lifejackets. These don't interest the MAIB. Additionally, UK appears to have more sail and auxiliary sail boats active compared to these small vessels. In US the safety of these sail vessels is *much* higher - so that could be an equaliser. Your RoSPA data included only drownings in UK. Dig into their leisure industry reports (LASS) and you'll find they report typically 5,000 to 6,000 injuries over about 11 categories of vessel (which is confusing!). However, the likely ratio of injury/death will be around 1/5 (the US boating rate) to 1/10 (US and UK car rate). This implies around 500 to 600 deaths from boating in UK per year. I know - heroic assumption! UK road deaths around 3200 in 2005 with 30M registered cars. Boat-related deaths: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group.../page/dft_foi_ 610522.pdf shows numbers reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Board. Incidents involving deaths, maybe half a dozen a year. http://www.rospa.com/waterandleisure...atersafety.htm lists 22 boating drownings in the UK in 2004. There is no legal requirement to register small craft in the UK so nobody knows how many there are. Also certainly several million. Estimates from consumer market surveys around 1995 put the numbers of people who regard themselves as participating regularly in sailing activites around 3,000,000. Not a very useful stat, but it's the best I've got! -- JimB http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/ Describing some Greek and Spanish cruising areas |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Stefan wrote:
In article , says... There are about 180 million cars in the US, and 12 million registered boats, so the ratio is 15 to one. The number of boating fatalities is around 700, but this doesn't include drowning while swimming off a boat which is a substantial factor, so I will exercise some prerogative and call it an even 1000 deaths. There are 30000 auto related deaths, so that ratio is 30 to one. Both those accident rates are higher than the UK, whose population is around 25% of the USA. Boating deaths appear vastly higher in the USA. I wonder why? There were a substantial number of drownings in UK rivers and streams; I wonder if this is just a difference in the way they get reported. Certainly there is no place in the UK like Florida, which has 50% more boats per capita than New England, itself considered a major boating area. BTW, every time I try to show that one area or one type of boat is more dangerous, I find that it always seems to even out. This has led me to think people act responsibly up to a certain level of perceived safety. In other words, until someone you know has been a victim, you don't think it will happen to you. UK road deaths around 3200 in 2005 with 30M registered cars. That's about a ninth of the fatalities with a sixth of the cars. The average car in the US does about 11,000 miles a year (I think). How does that compare? Boat-related deaths: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group.../page/dft_foi_ 610522.pdf shows numbers reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Board. Incidents involving deaths, maybe half a dozen a year. This report does not include privately owned recreational vessels: "The MAIB welcomes the voluntary reporting of accidents to or on pleasure craft used only for recreation purposes and not for commercial gain, but there is no statutory requirement for this." http://www.rospa.com/waterandleisure...atersafety.htm lists 22 boating drownings in the UK in 2004. There is no legal requirement to register small craft in the UK so nobody knows how many there are. Also certainly several million. Is that true for small powerboats? A 25 foot runabout with a big outboard needs no registration? |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Very glad to see the safety discussion. Most informative. I am very
involved in the US effort to require that all exposed propellers on boats are guarded. We can use your assistance and input. If you have never seen the results of someone that has been involved with a rotating propeller, there are only two other forms of injury that equals the devastation to the human body being struck at 180 hits per second at an idle RPM and that is a full body burn or a significant hostile combat injury. Please join in the discussion whether you agree or disagree.The site is Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Recreational (SAFER) Boating. We just opened for discussion. I am sure there is much to say pro and con on the exposed propeller injury, pro and con. RT |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:45:07 UTC, Ronald Raygun
wrote: : Ian Johnston wrote: : 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. : : Yes, that's what, for simplicity, I am indeed assuming, and fully : accept that this is likely not to be the case. I'm not sure I'd : guess correctly which way the skew works. I'd have thought it would skew very strongly away from natural deaths on the roads. Most people are ill before they die and most ill people are in bed: either at home or in a hospital. : In addition, the 3,500 deaths per year : : What 3500 deaths per year? Your figure was 3000 accidental deaths : per year per 60M poulation. Mine was 1 natural death per year per : 3500 population. Sorry - I should have explained. I remembered slightly on the low side. "According to Department for Transport figures the overall number of reported road casualties in 2003 were 290,607. This is a 4% reduction on the figures for 2002. 3,508 people were killed, a 2% increase on the previous year." from http://tinyurl.com/hmytt : 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? : : Of course not, but a simplified model might expect accidental deaths : to be evenly distributed, and natural deaths to be well skewed in : favour of the old. Far too simple, I think. It may be OK to assume that accidental deaths would be evenly distributed amongst the participating population, in some cases, but that still leaves the participant distribution in the mix. What were we arguing about anyway? It can't be that gliding is more dangerous than driving, 'cos we agree on that! Is it "how much more dangerous is it?" Here's my new ball park calculation. Each year about 5 out of 5000 regularly active UK glider pilots die in gliding incidents. They'll do about 50 hours per annum, which means one fatal accident for every 50,000 hours. Each year about 500 out of 20,000,000 regularly active drivers die in road traffic incidents (most RTA deaths are pedestrians and many of the rest are passengers). They'll do about 10,000 miles at 50 mph = 200 hours per annum, which means one death for every 8,000,000 hours. On that basis, flying a glider is 160 times more dangerous, per hour, than driving a car. Lots of wiggle room and rounding, obviously, but I'm happy with a factor of 100 - 200 here. I've tried to find some statistics for watersports, to drag this vaguely back on topic, but the best I can do is http://www.rospa.com/factsheets/accidents_overview.pdf which give 427 drownings per annum. That includes everyone from yachtsmen in storms to toddlers in paddling pools, though, so I wouldn't even like to try for a ball park figure here. Ian |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
I imagine the chances of being killed by falling are somewhat higher.
"Stefan" wrote in message .. . In article , says... "Stefan" wrote in message .. . In article , says... For instance, mortality rates of bowling are significantly higher than scuba. Evidence? I seriously doubt that is actually the case. The statement also assumes causality. 'Mortality rates OF bowling' is not the same thing as 'mortality rates WHILST bowling'. Yes but I doubt the statement is true even regardless of causality. Some of these nonsense statistics are remarkably persistent. A common one heard in the climbing community is "There is a 1% chance you will be killed by climbing in your first year." If you climb, you hear this one from people all the time. It can be traced to a UK government report from the 1950s and was clearly wrong even then. Given the way climbing protection equipment has improved in the meantime, it is wildly inaccurate today. Nevertheless, people read or hear it, assume it's true and go on repeating it. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Dave wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 08:42:54 -0700, " said: I am very involved in the US effort to require that all exposed propellers on boats are guarded. What is the annual rate of deaths and serious injury in the US from unguarded propellers on sailing craft? The overall rate is about 2-5 fatalities a year. It seems like many of them are related to houseboat rentals, and propeller guards may make sense in that area. Since the stat includes "engine strikes" along with "prop strikes" its hard to say how many lives would actually be saved if all outboards had guards. Given the large number of risks we face every day, I have trouble supporting "blanket" safety procedures, such as prop guards on all boat. Until we're ready to ban alcohol, and enforce speed limits, we shouldn't penalize all boaters for a risk that doesn't quite exist. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
In article ,
says... UK road deaths around 3200 in 2005 with 30M registered cars. That's about a ninth of the fatalities with a sixth of the cars. The average car in the US does about 11,000 miles a year (I think). How does that compare? Similar. From memory the UK average is around 9,000 miles. Boat-related deaths: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group.../page/dft_foi_ 610522.pdf shows numbers reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Board. Incidents involving deaths, maybe half a dozen a year. This report does not include privately owned recreational vessels: "The MAIB welcomes the voluntary reporting of accidents to or on pleasure craft used only for recreation purposes and not for commercial gain, but there is no statutory requirement for this." The MAIB does in fact investigate accidents for privately owned recreational vessels. Several such reports have been discussed here recently. There is no legal requirement to register small craft in the UK so nobody knows how many there are. Also certainly several million. Is that true for small powerboats? A 25 foot runabout with a big outboard needs no registration? Correct. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Dave wrote:
... The overall rate is about 2-5 fatalities a year. It seems like many of them are related to houseboat rentals, and propeller guards may make sense in that area. Since the stat includes "engine strikes" along with "prop strikes" its hard to say how many lives would actually be saved if all outboards had guards. Given the large number of risks we face every day, I have trouble supporting "blanket" safety procedures, such as prop guards on all boat. Until we're ready to ban alcohol, and enforce speed limits, we shouldn't penalize all boaters for a risk that doesn't quite exist. While I'm philosophically inclined to agree, there was a reason I asked not about all boats, but about "sailing craft." And I was in fact inclined to ask about "sailing craft with inboard engines." I went back 8 years. A total of roughly 1000 accidents were listed as "struck by motor or propeller." Of those, only 2 were from auxiliary sailboats. As I said, there were only a small number of fatalities, but I would think that any propeller strike would be serious. |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
Rob Cullen wrote:
I imagine the chances of being killed by falling are somewhat higher. Someone once said: "Novice climbers worry about falling, experienced climbers worry about something falling on them." |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
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 -- |
Boat Safety - and thread arguments
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:02 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com