"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...
riverman, what are the odds of disaster? Is that what we are trying to
figure out? How far can we go to the edge of the safety net, and not
fall out. For each of us the safety net is at a different point, all
things considered!

I came across this interesting article that I think might apply:

The Odds of Disaster -
http://tinyurl.com/646ot

That IS an interesting article; I suggest everyone read it! Good find, tom.

The summary is both important and counterintuitive:
Providing such things as insurance cause people to assume higher risks; a
process called "moral hazard". Drivers drive worse because they are covered.
People take health risks because they are covered. The climbers in the story
took out insurance on their climb, because a certain baseline of protection
is wise, but similarly they knew that too much protection causes moral
hazard, so they chose NOT to carry their satellite phone on the climb, as it
would have made them take more risks, thinking rescue was only a phone call
away.

To me, that underscores the importance of recognizing the essential, but
minimal safety precautions we should take. Too much protection = too much
moral hazard (as a raft guide, we knew about this 20 years ago, when we
decided NOT to give our clients helmets. We called it the 'gladiator
syndrome': give them helmets and they feel invincible and inevitably get
hurt more often than if they feel a bit vulnerable.)


One way of analysing the - go/no go - scenario, is to consider
threshold factor. Such as threshold temps when hazardous results are
certain. Can you as an experienced kayaker, define those thresholds for
those of us who don't have the experience.

I'm a canoeist, not a kayaker, but your question is well-taken. The response
is; if not me, then who? As a beginner kayaker, are YOU qualified to define
those thresholds? I think not...which is why we have such things as
protocols (minimal acceptable gear, safety procedures, etc). Which is also
why it is so crucial that things like the Rating Scale are well-understood,
accurate, and provide enough info to be useful.

Not sure where this post and reply are coming from (you didn't include any
hint as to what post you were responding to), but this is really interesting
anyway.

--riverman

On 26-Jan-2005, "riverman" wrote:

Providing such things as insurance cause people to assume higher risks; a
process called "moral hazard".

Also called "risk homeostasis". When something is used or changed to
decrease risk, people tend to increase the risk to its original level
by changing something else. Unfortunately, since people are _extremely_
poor at assessing risk, their attempts to maintain a level of risk
often turn into increased risk. Perfect example - all the four-wheel-
drive SUVs in the ditches along the roads in winter here in the Great
White North.

Risk homeostasis has been discussed a lot in the context of kayaking
on the Paddlewise mailing list. It's a big problem unless the paddler
is aware of it and compensates.

Mike

PS - I've also heard it called "Volvo Syndrome" - put someone in a
safer car and they drive like idiots.