"Steve Cramer" wrote in message
...

14 y.o. beginners, open tandem canoe, no immersion clothing, paddling open
58-60 degree water, on a day with high off-shore winds forecast. It takes
a very kind heart to find "reasonable" in that, and I appreciate your
trying, but it's hard for me to do so.

Why weren't you there? Sounds like criminal negligence to me. Please post
your address and daytime phone number.

Wolfgang
y'all are wondering why somebody doesn't do something about
this?........well, one of us is trying.

14 y.o. beginners, open tandem canoe, no immersion clothing, paddling
open
58-60 degree water, on a day with high off-shore winds forecast. It
takes
a very kind heart to find "reasonable" in that, and I appreciate your
trying, but it's hard for me to do so.

Why weren't you there? Sounds like criminal negligence to me. Please
post
your address and daytime phone number.

Wolfgang

I've been following this discussion for a couple of days, and I really wish
I could understand where you're coming from with this line of thought. From
your response above and the one you made to Brian, I get the impression that
you think anyone who believes this was a preventable tragedy is just being
stupid. Am I correct? Why are you taking shots at these people?? Or are
you saying that anyone who wasn't there should be silent? I don't buy that
either. Personally, I would rather debate all the issues associated with a
fatality and possibly learn (or teach) something that would maybe prevent
something similar from happening in the future, than not say anything and
tacitly accept the deaths of kids like this as just being part of the game.

If Steve's description of the circumstances is correct, I have to agree with
him- the guide, however qualified he might be, appears to have made an error
which resulted in the death of these children. It's one thing to take
risks, and I would agree that to live life insulated from risk is not a good
thing. But the risks I take in my life are ones that I assume for myself.
Fourteen year old beginners like this are not in a position to assume risk
on their own, they are at the mercy of the people who lead them. And it
sure looks to me like these kids were led wrong. I seriously doubt that in
the last moments of their lives they were thinking thoughts like "well, I
took a risk and now I'm going to die, but I leave this life happy, knowing I
lived life to the fullest!" They were probably terrified because they never
dreamed that a simple paddle on the water could end up killing them. Unless
I'm really missing something, these kids were depending on the guide to
impart to them the risks they were assuming and to protect them, and he let
them down.

To be honest, I wasn't really bothered by this event when I read the initial
post, but your responses in the vein above have convinced me that there
*was* negligence.

"Franklin" wrote in message
...

14 y.o. beginners, open tandem canoe, no immersion clothing, paddling
open
58-60 degree water, on a day with high off-shore winds forecast. It
takes
a very kind heart to find "reasonable" in that, and I appreciate your
trying, but it's hard for me to do so.

Why weren't you there? Sounds like criminal negligence to me. Please
post
your address and daytime phone number.

Wolfgang

I've been following this discussion for a couple of days, and I really
wish
I could understand where you're coming from with this line of thought.
From
your response above and the one you made to Brian, I get the impression
that
you think anyone who believes this was a preventable tragedy is just being
stupid. Am I correct? Why are you taking shots at these people?? Or are
you saying that anyone who wasn't there should be silent? I don't buy
that
either. Personally, I would rather debate all the issues associated with
a
fatality and possibly learn (or teach) something that would maybe prevent
something similar from happening in the future, than not say anything and
tacitly accept the deaths of kids like this as just being part of the
game.

I'll let Wolfgang take care of himself in your address to him, Franklin, but
I want to mention that at this point, with what I know from looking at the
guide's website, the schools website and the news reports (which as an
amalgam are still probably less than half the story), combined with my own
experience of leading trips, my feeling is that this was probably not
negligence, but a bad situation that turned out worse. I don't think anyone
who believes it was a preventable tragedy is being stupid, but I think they
are reaching the worst possible conclusion, and doing it very hastily. The
only evidence I can see that someone could say illustrated negligence is
that two kids died, there was only a cell phone for land communication, and
lots of suppositions about the events. However, there is ample evidence that
it was an artifact of some bad luck, and that the trip was well-thought out
and equipped. Specifically:

-the guide was experienced, had 25 years professional guiding experience and
the experience of running his own company with dozens of trips per year for
this same school. That's much more than most trip leaders have in any given
situation.
-the guide was well-acquainted with the kids, being their HS English
teacher, and having worked in that school with those kids for several years.
-the ratio of guides to kids is advertised to always be at least 1:8, which
is a very safety-minded and reasonable ratio.
-the ratio of boats was 6 client boats to 1 motorized guide boat. This is
_extremely_ reasonable, in my experience.

Additionally, it appears that the guide made the judgement call to stick to
their schedule, which would have assisted anyone seeking them in knowing
where they were. I don't know if the trip did not have a radio: at one point
when all the other members of the trip were safely at the pontoon, the guide
decided to send his strongest paddlers to search/rescue the other boys. That
it was himself indicates to me that there was probably an additional trip
leader. The only misjudgement I can put my finger on (which is not
criminally negligent, but a calculated risk) was that he separated the trip.
However, I probably would have done the same thing, and its entirely likely
that, if he had NOT done so, he would not have gotten into cell phone range
and the story would have read about an entire trip lost, not just two boys.

If there was not a radio, then that does not seem bizarre to me: in 15 years
of running trips, we almost never had radios. Even in the Grand Canyon,
commerical trips used to have a policy of using signal mirrors and sending a
runner. Many modern trips elect to not carry radios OR cell phones, as that
can alter the experience we've had threads about that here). I think its
very resonable to not assume that all trips must carry radios. Remember,
this was primarily a coastal cruise, with what looks like one open water
crossing to that night's campsite. Even the local enforcement folks made
mention that this one particular stretch of water had the unusual
characteristic of being shallow enough to make ocean waves steep-sided. It
sounds like if they had been a handful of miles farther along, the situation
would have been entirely different.

Anyway, at this point I think that assuming that it was negligence is a
judgement based on the thinnest of information, and is being based solely on
the outcome. Hindsight is always 20/20, but having been in enough situation
that have gone sour, I know that you can never prepare for ALL
possibilities, and from facts I can glean, it looks to me that this guide
and company had established enough protocols to indicate that they probably
were not negligent, but just caught in a small series of misfortunes and
reasonable misjudgements. One litmus test for negligence is to ask yourself,
if you were in that situation, at what point would you have made a different
decision. From what it appears happened, that moment (if they did not have a
radio, which we don't know) would have been to decide not to cross the open
water. But when the set out, the weather was clear and optomistic, so I
probably would not have done differently. The other time would have been
right when the canoeists started getting blown away (if thats what
happened), and if the motor had started, then it would have been trivial to
catch them.

What would you have done differently?

--riverman



If Steve's description of the circumstances is correct, I have to agree
with
him- the guide, however qualified he might be, appears to have made an
error
which resulted in the death of these children. It's one thing to take
risks, and I would agree that to live life insulated from risk is not a
good
thing. But the risks I take in my life are ones that I assume for myself.
Fourteen year old beginners like this are not in a position to assume risk
on their own, they are at the mercy of the people who lead them. And it
sure looks to me like these kids were led wrong. I seriously doubt that
in
the last moments of their lives they were thinking thoughts like "well, I
took a risk and now I'm going to die, but I leave this life happy, knowing
I
lived life to the fullest!" They were probably terrified because they
never
dreamed that a simple paddle on the water could end up killing them.
Unless
I'm really missing something, these kids were depending on the guide to
impart to them the risks they were assuming and to protect them, and he
let
them down.

To be honest, I wasn't really bothered by this event when I read the
initial
post, but your responses in the vein above have convinced me that there
*was* negligence.

I'll let Wolfgang take care of himself in your address to him, Franklin,

I think he's taken care of himself quite nicely. But until he's capable of
stating his point of view without belittling, insulting and generally
antagonizing anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him, I won't have
anything more to do with him. I know he's your friend, but... sorry.

However, there is ample evidence that
it was an artifact of some bad luck, and that the trip was well-thought
out
and equipped. Specifically:

-the guide was experienced, had 25 years professional guiding experience
and
the experience of running his own company with dozens of trips per year
for
this same school. That's much more than most trip leaders have in any
given
situation.

But... how does *past* experience guarantee that no mistakes were made on
*this* trip? I can't agree that you build up some sort of positive karma by
successfully leading previous trips. Did he do a good job over the last 25
years? Probably, and kudos to him. But that doesn't mean he didn't mess up
on *this* trip.

-the guide was well-acquainted with the kids, being their HS English
teacher, and having worked in that school with those kids for several
years.

Again, I don't see how this supports the assertion that he didn't make a
mistake.

-the ratio of guides to kids is advertised to always be at least 1:8,
which
is a very safety-minded and reasonable ratio.

That's true, I agree with you.

-the ratio of boats was 6 client boats to 1 motorized guide boat. This is
_extremely_ reasonable, in my experience.


True also.

Additionally, it appears that the guide made the judgement call to stick
to
their schedule, which would have assisted anyone seeking them in knowing
where they were. I don't know if the trip did not have a radio: at one
point
when all the other members of the trip were safely at the pontoon, the
guide
decided to send his strongest paddlers to search/rescue the other boys.
That
it was himself indicates to me that there was probably an additional trip
leader.

The first is a good point, although I would alternately argue that sometimes
you have to be willing to abandon a plan also. If the threat is immediate
and rescue is not, I might suggest that it's time to go to plan B and not
count on your rescuers to search along plan A. Why not include an inclement
weather "escape route" in your planning, rather than sticking to plan A and
hoping the rescuers will find you in time? I'm not sure I agree that his
leaving the group to fend for itself is an indication that there was an
additional trip leader.

Remember,
this was primarily a coastal cruise, with what looks like one open water
crossing to that night's campsite. Even the local enforcement folks made
mention that this one particular stretch of water had the unusual
characteristic of being shallow enough to make ocean waves steep-sided.

But this sounds like a challenging crossing for a group of beginners,
doesn't it? Something that might have made it worthwhile to have additional
safety precautions?

Anyway, at this point I think that assuming that it was negligence is a
judgement based on the thinnest of information, and is being based solely
on
the outcome. Hindsight is always 20/20, but having been in enough
situation
that have gone sour, I know that you can never prepare for ALL
possibilities, and from facts I can glean, it looks to me that this guide
and company had established enough protocols to indicate that they
probably
were not negligent, but just caught in a small series of misfortunes and
reasonable misjudgements.

That's true, and I'm not saying the guy should be hung. All I'm saying is
that a few mistakes were made, they appear to have been preventable, and
that there's a lesson to be learned; it's important to prepare for the worst
if you can, sometimes "standard" protocals need to be augmented.
Personally, that's why I like discussions like this- I think it helps all of
us learn and rethink their notions regarding safety and etc.


What would you have done differently?


Well, as you say, some of the facts of what was done are unknown so it's
hard to say specifically what I would have done differently. But I'll say
one thing; I'm not sure I would have taken a group of beginners across a
shallow open water crossing known to generate steep waves.

-the guide was experienced, had 25 years professional guiding experience
and
the experience of running his own company with dozens of trips per year
for
this same school. That's much more than most trip leaders have in any
given
situation.

But... how does *past* experience guarantee that no mistakes were made on
*this* trip? I can't agree that you build up some sort of positive karma
by
successfully leading previous trips. Did he do a good job over the last
25
years? Probably, and kudos to him. But that doesn't mean he didn't mess
up
on *this* trip.


I wanted to clarify this, because upon reflection I don't think I made my
point very well. What I'm really trying to say is that although I truly
believe that he has extensive experience leading trips as you note, that
only convinces me that he's been successfully leading trips for 25 years
previous to this incident; it doesn't convince me that he lead *this*
particular trip very well.

You also asked me what I would have done differently. I am primarily a
whitewater boater these days, and most of the trips I lead are on whitewater
rivers rather than streams. I do a fair amount of sea kayaking as well,
usually up on Lake Superior, but do not typically lead. I take inexperience
very seriously; I would never put a beginning whitewater paddler on class IV
whitewater, and I would never put a beginning sea kayaker in exposed
conditions such as these. I would also not allow canoes to be used in
exposed conditions, as the article indicates was done. God knows that
putting a open canoe on Lake Superior is just asking for trouble.

Wolfgang mockingly suggested that perhaps I would have preferred that they
do their kayaking on dry land. While I realize he was just being stupid in
an attempt to goad me, it's not too far from the truth. For several years I
was an ACA certified whitewater boating instructor. I never put a newbie
boater into a kayak, with a sprayskirt on, out on the water. The very first
thing I would do would be get them into a boat on dry land, show them the
outfitting, let them get the feel of the cockpit, etc. Once I thought they
were confortable with the boat and outfitting, I'd let them get on the water
in a pool or a designated swimming area (or some other similar, appropriate
area) *without* a skirt on, in which case the very first thing I would do
would be to make them do wet exits until they thought I was being
ridiculous. When I decided they were ready to paddle with a skirt on, I
would put them on dry land and make them remove their sprayskirts ad nauseum
until I was convinced they had it figured out automatically, then I'd put
them back on fla****er again and make them do wet exits with an attached
skirt until once again they thought I was being ridiculous. After I'd
taught them the basics of fla****er paddling, I would then take them on
class I/II whitewater with some experienced boaters to help them get the
hang of paddling on moving water. My point is that you can never be too
cautious with newbies.

I also want to make sure that you understand that I have a great deal of
respect in general for your opinion on this, although I don't necessarily
agree with some of your points. I mention this because your friend Wolfgang
seems to think that disagreeing with another person's opinions means that
the discussion must automatically devolve into a ****-slinging festival, and
I find that unfortunate.

If it is the Steve Hall I know then I have to say that all the comments
made here are out of order since we do not know the FACTS we only have
reportage, and if the Steve Hall is a different one then the comments
are still out of order as far as I am concerned the defendant is
innocent till proven guilty.

I also think you are ALWAYS going to have accidents and deaths if you do
"adventure sports". - see my previous post

n message , Franklin
writes

-the guide was experienced, had 25 years professional guiding experience
and
the experience of running his own company with dozens of trips per year
for
this same school. That's much more than most trip leaders have in any
given
situation.

But... how does *past* experience guarantee that no mistakes were made on
*this* trip? I can't agree that you build up some sort of positive karma
by
successfully leading previous trips. Did he do a good job over the last
25
years? Probably, and kudos to him. But that doesn't mean he didn't mess
up
on *this* trip.


I wanted to clarify this, because upon reflection I don't think I made my
point very well. What I'm really trying to say is that although I truly
believe that he has extensive experience leading trips as you note, that
only convinces me that he's been successfully leading trips for 25 years
previous to this incident; it doesn't convince me that he lead *this*
particular trip very well.

You also asked me what I would have done differently. I am primarily a
whitewater boater these days, and most of the trips I lead are on whitewater
rivers rather than streams. I do a fair amount of sea kayaking as well,
usually up on Lake Superior, but do not typically lead. I take inexperience
very seriously; I would never put a beginning whitewater paddler on class IV
whitewater, and I would never put a beginning sea kayaker in exposed
conditions such as these. I would also not allow canoes to be used in
exposed conditions, as the article indicates was done. God knows that
putting a open canoe on Lake Superior is just asking for trouble.

Wolfgang mockingly suggested that perhaps I would have preferred that they
do their kayaking on dry land. While I realize he was just being stupid in
an attempt to goad me, it's not too far from the truth. For several years I
was an ACA certified whitewater boating instructor. I never put a newbie
boater into a kayak, with a sprayskirt on, out on the water. The very first
thing I would do would be get them into a boat on dry land, show them the
outfitting, let them get the feel of the cockpit, etc. Once I thought they
were confortable with the boat and outfitting, I'd let them get on the water
in a pool or a designated swimming area (or some other similar, appropriate
area) *without* a skirt on, in which case the very first thing I would do
would be to make them do wet exits until they thought I was being
ridiculous. When I decided they were ready to paddle with a skirt on, I
would put them on dry land and make them remove their sprayskirts ad nauseum
until I was convinced they had it figured out automatically, then I'd put
them back on fla****er again and make them do wet exits with an attached
skirt until once again they thought I was being ridiculous. After I'd
taught them the basics of fla****er paddling, I would then take them on
class I/II whitewater with some experienced boaters to help them get the
hang of paddling on moving water. My point is that you can never be too
cautious with newbies.

I also want to make sure that you understand that I have a great deal of
respect in general for your opinion on this, although I don't necessarily
agree with some of your points. I mention this because your friend Wolfgang
seems to think that disagreeing with another person's opinions means that
the discussion must automatically devolve into a ****-slinging festival, and
I find that unfortunate.



--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

"Franklin" wrote in message
...

...Wolfgang...was just being stupid...

It comes naturally. You should be kind to the.....um......challenged.


...Wolfgang seems to think that...the discussion must automatically
devolve into a ****-slinging festival

So? There are options?

and I find that unfortunate.

Give it some time......you'll get over it.

Wolfgang

"Franklin" wrote in message
...
I've been following this discussion for a couple of days, and I
really wish
I could understand where you're coming from with this line of
thought. From
your response above and the one you made to Brian, I get the
impression that
you think anyone who believes this was a preventable tragedy is just
being
stupid. Am I correct?

No, you are not. In theory, most accidents are preventable. In
retrospect, one can often identify ways in which they could have been
averted. Even I have little trouble understanding and accepting this.

What I DO have trouble with is the demonstrably stupid notion that
hindsight is 20/20. What is being demonstrated in this thread (as it
is so often, virtually everywhere) is that hindsight is typically as
myopic and astigmatic as is foresight.

Why are you taking shots at these people?? Or are
you saying that anyone who wasn't there should be silent? I don't
buy that
either. Personally, I would rather debate all the issues associated
with a
fatality and possibly learn (or teach) something that would maybe
prevent
something similar from happening in the future, than not say
anything and
tacitly accept the deaths of kids like this as just being part of
the game.

Personally, I generally prefer discussion to debate, but that's a
minor point and I realize that one or the other may be more
appropriate and/or useful depending on circumstances. As to whether
debate on Usenet will prevent similar accidents from happening in the
future.......well, that is debatable. At any rate, I think there is
ample reason to believe that people who hand down a verdict before an
investigation reveals whether any malfeasance or negligence has
occurred are not likely to be much interested in debate or discussion.
Nor are they likely to be of any appreciable use in either.

Moreover, anyone whose expertize in these matters allows him to
correctly diagnose exactly what went wrong in this situation at some
great distance and based solely on preliminary newspaper reports (or,
more likely, a condensation of such reports found on a website.....or
what someone else in a newsgroup said about such a condensation)
would, obviously, have been able to prevent the accident from
happening in the first place. This being the case, one has to wonder
why these savants are nattering on Usenet when they SHOULD be out
saving lives. Further, I thinks it's safe to assume that they were
NOT out saving lives in uncannily similar situations on that
day......otherwise, they'd have told us exactly how they did it,
right? Therefore, they MUST have been free to take the Florida
situation in hand, thus saving two needlessly wasted
lives......um.....unless they had something more important to do,
which I am willing to concede, though I'm having some trouble figuring
out what it may have been.

Tacitly or otherwise, anyone but an abject fool MUST accept the death
of kids like this as part of the game. Any and every activity in or
on water is inherently dangerous. For that matter, life is dangerous.
To be sure, we can devise ways of reducing some of the risks associate
with virtually any activity, but one can go only so far in this
direction without obliterating what makes it worthwhile. Could this
particular venture have been made safer? Of course. Could it have
been made foolproof? Well, water is tricky stuff. I suppose the trip
could have been made on a nice soft lawn, out of the sun, away from
any trees that might fall or a bicycle path off of which some crazed
biker might careen into the crowd.

If Steve's description of the circumstances is correct, I have to
agree with
him- the guide, however qualified he might be, appears to have made
an error
which resulted in the death of these children.

If Steve's description of the circumstances is correct, it will be
some time before we know it. Given the realities of life on Earth, we
may never know even if made privy to all of the available facts.

Meanwhile, and speaking only for myself, I think there can be little
doubt that the guide made an error. Assuming a reasonable degree of
humanity on his part, he doubtless made more than one. Whether or not
any error or errors on his part contributed to or directly caused the
deaths remain to be seen. Any number of circumstances beyond his
control could have come into play. For example, teenagers are
notoriously fractious. Isn't it at least possible that a couple of
them deliberately hung back from the group for God knows what reason
of their own? And then, when things got ugly, what should a group
leader do? Should he abandon a larger group, who would also need
whatever help he might be able to provide, in favor of a smaller?
Clearly, there are many other possibilites. Just as clearly,
judgement should be held in abeyance until all the facts are known (or
at least as many of them as can be discovered) and have been assessed.

It's one thing to take
risks, and I would agree that to live life insulated from risk is
not a good
thing. But the risks I take in my life are ones that I assume for
myself.
Fourteen year old beginners like this are not in a position to
assume risk
on their own, they are at the mercy of the people who lead them.
And it
sure looks to me like these kids were led wrong.

Leaving aside the fatuous notion that what anything looks like to
anyone (and, in particular, to anyone who gets his information from
speculation on a Usenet newsgroup) this early is of any earthly use,
the question of responsibility isn't quite as clear and simple as you
suppose either. Presumably, in this day and age, the parents of all
the minor participants were required to give written consent.
Moreover, if fourteen year olds are not in a position to assume risk
on their own, then how is it that every state in the U.S. allows them
to ride bicycles in traffic or engage in myriad other dangerous
activities unsupervised? Is kayaking inherently more dangerous than
skiing, martial arts or skateboarding?

I seriously doubt that in
the last moments of their lives they were thinking thoughts like
"well, I
took a risk and now I'm going to die, but I leave this life happy,
knowing I
lived life to the fullest!" They were probably terrified because
they never
dreamed that a simple paddle on the water could end up killing them.

Nothing to argue with there. But then, there's nothing much there.
One could say the same of adults. In either case it's not much of a
revelation....nor is it germane or helpful.

Unless
I'm really missing something, these kids were depending on the guide
to
impart to them the risks they were assuming and to protect them, and
he let
them down.

Well, maybe you're missing something. Maybe we should sit back for a
while and see if any facts emerge.

To be honest, I wasn't really bothered by this event when I read the
initial
post, but your responses in the vein above have convinced me that
there
*was* negligence.

This position makes perfect sense if one assumes that I'm part of some
sort of cover-up conspiracy. Otherwise, it suggests you need a
refresher on what constitutes evidence.

The real tragedy in this case isn't the deaths of two innocent youths.
That's sad, and it was in all likelihood preventable, but that can be
said of any accident, if only.........

The real tragedy is that there is an endless supply of cretins ever
ready to destroy yet more lives in a futile attempt to convince the
world (and thus perhaps even themselves) that they would have done
things differently and inevitably have saved the day......as any good
superhero should.

Wolfgang
who never would have guessed that his contributions here could have a
retroactive effect on events occurring elsewhere and days earlier.

Personally, I generally prefer discussion to debate, but that's a
minor point and I realize that one or the other may be more
appropriate and/or useful depending on circumstances. As to whether
debate on Usenet will prevent similar accidents from happening in the
future.......well, that is debatable. At any rate, I think there is
ample reason to believe that people who hand down a verdict before an
investigation reveals whether any malfeasance or negligence has
occurred are not likely to be much interested in debate or discussion.
Nor are they likely to be of any appreciable use in either.


Will Usenet prevent accidents in the future? Probably not. But deciding
not to talk about unfortunate events which have occurred because you might
be seen as imposing some form of judgement on the participants will
*definitely* not prevent future accidents. You can't discuss events like
this without imposing some form of "judgement" on those who are involved.
You criticize those who find fault with the guide in this case for passing
judgement. Yet riverman above finds no real fault with the guide, and
that's a judgement as well. Do you find fault with his assessment as well?

Moreover, anyone whose expertize in these matters allows him to
correctly diagnose exactly what went wrong in this situation at some
great distance and based solely on preliminary newspaper reports (or,
more likely, a condensation of such reports found on a website.....or
what someone else in a newsgroup said about such a condensation)
would, obviously, have been able to prevent the accident from
happening in the first place. This being the case, one has to wonder
why these savants are nattering on Usenet when they SHOULD be out
saving lives. Further, I thinks it's safe to assume that they were
NOT out saving lives in uncannily similar situations on that
day......otherwise, they'd have told us exactly how they did it,
right? Therefore, they MUST have been free to take the Florida
situation in hand, thus saving two needlessly wasted
lives......um.....unless they had something more important to do,
which I am willing to concede, though I'm having some trouble figuring
out what it may have been.

Again, you criticize take the known facts and pass a negative judgement; do
you feel the same about those who take those same facts and find no fault at
all? You seem to be coming down solely on those who find fault based on the
known information, but if you're going to be intellectually honest, you have
to criticize both those who pass a negative judgement (like Brian) and also
those who pass a positive judgement (like riverman). I guess my main point
is that I understand your disagreement as you've stated it, but I find your
means of arguing your point to be needlessly confrontational. Just my
opinion, however.

I also wonder where you came to the conclusion that those who are
"nattering" on about safety aren't out saving lives? I would be willing to
bet that many of the people who have expressed criticism have found
themselves in a rescue situation and have strong feelings about these
situations as a result. And it's hard to do something about a situation in
Florida if you happened to be in California when it happened; I have no
doubt that most of those you've attacked for offering their opinions would
have done everything in their power to help had they been there.


Tacitly or otherwise, anyone but an abject fool MUST accept the death
of kids like this as part of the game. Any and every activity in or
on water is inherently dangerous. For that matter, life is dangerous.
To be sure, we can devise ways of reducing some of the risks associate
with virtually any activity, but one can go only so far in this
direction without obliterating what makes it worthwhile. Could this
particular venture have been made safer? Of course. Could it have
been made foolproof? Well, water is tricky stuff. I suppose the trip
could have been made on a nice soft lawn, out of the sun, away from
any trees that might fall or a bicycle path off of which some crazed
biker might careen into the crowd.


I don't buy this. You say "could this particular venture have been made
safer? Of course." Well... isn't that the point? Nobody is saying that
water safety can be made foolproof. From your quote, even you obviously see
that the trip could have been safer, so my question is- why wasn't it?
Everybody appears to be in agreement that it could have been, so why wasn't
it? Not to speak for others, but I think that's what folks are saying. And
I don't get the lawn example. Nobody's trying to say that kayaking is or
should be risk free.



Meanwhile, and speaking only for myself, I think there can be little
doubt that the guide made an error. Assuming a reasonable degree of
humanity on his part, he doubtless made more than one. Whether or not
any error or errors on his part contributed to or directly caused the
deaths remain to be seen. Any number of circumstances beyond his
control could have come into play. For example, teenagers are
notoriously fractious. Isn't it at least possible that a couple of
them deliberately hung back from the group for God knows what reason
of their own? And then, when things got ugly, what should a group
leader do? Should he abandon a larger group, who would also need
whatever help he might be able to provide, in favor of a smaller?
Clearly, there are many other possibilites. Just as clearly,
judgement should be held in abeyance until all the facts are known (or
at least as many of them as can be discovered) and have been assessed.


Of course there are a myriad of possibilities. And many of the sources of
problems you cite above are probably impossible to deal with. But it
appears that some other problems *were* possible to deal with. Even you say
that there can be little doubt that the guide made an error. Which is
pretty much the judgement of everybody else, and the judgement which you
seem to be harshing on them for.


Leaving aside the fatuous notion that what anything looks like to
anyone (and, in particular, to anyone who gets his information from
speculation on a Usenet newsgroup) this early is of any earthly use,
the question of responsibility isn't quite as clear and simple as you
suppose either. Presumably, in this day and age, the parents of all
the minor participants were required to give written consent.
Moreover, if fourteen year olds are not in a position to assume risk
on their own, then how is it that every state in the U.S. allows them
to ride bicycles in traffic or engage in myriad other dangerous
activities unsupervised? Is kayaking inherently more dangerous than
skiing, martial arts or skateboarding?


I don't know if kayaking is more dangerous than the other activities you
mention, but I would argue that the dangers are much less obvious.


This position makes perfect sense if one assumes that I'm part of some
sort of cover-up conspiracy. Otherwise, it suggests you need a
refresher on what constitutes evidence.


Look, God knows that I'm not trying to start a flame war with you, so
there's no cause to be nasty. I wasn't assuming you're part of some cover
up. All I was saying is that I thought you were unduly harsh towards others
who held a viewpoint other than your own, and it made me rethink the whole
thing. And I found that I disagreed with you. Nothing personal.


The real tragedy is that there is an endless supply of cretins ever
ready to destroy yet more lives in a futile attempt to convince the
world (and thus perhaps even themselves) that they would have done
things differently and inevitably have saved the day......as any good
superhero should.


I guess I didn't see this in any of the responses. I saw several people
point out that unnecessary errors were made that resulted in loss of life,
and that the guides decisions would not have been their own. What's wrong
with that? Don't you ever second guess the actions of others? That's just
human nature, I would say. Nobody here is claiming to be a superhero, as
far as I can see.

"Franklin" wrote in message
...
Snip
Will Usenet prevent accidents in the future? Probably not.

Major snip end

I'm not so sure about that. Everyone that reads discussions such as this
mentally go through the event and decide what they would do. This mental
exercise makes us better. It makes us confront the problems that we may
encounter. There are many people here that do lead trips and many people
here participate in group trips, so where better to get the mental
gymnastics going.

In my younger years I spent many hours in and around airplanes and that
community goes over every accident to try to learn from the other's
experiences. If nothing else it keeps everyone aware of the risks so that
they may intelligently manage them. - - It must work to some extent - I'm
still here. ;

Ken