Before debating skills vs. equipment, please consider Risk Compensation

[seaducer]

In another thread, we have a small debate going on about whether to rely on a human buddy or a redundant air source to deal with OOG emergencies. I haven't seen anyone mention Risk Compensation in discussing the question, so here is a thumbnail sketch:

snip.

I don't get the purpose behind this idea? It sounds like some kind of gobedly gook that an insurance agent will throw at you to justify raising your premiums even you have never made a claim.

As for personal responsibility, I am waiting for someone to get hurt diving, find their way here, read some thread about how XYZ agencys are providing sub-optimal training, and sue their instructor from 4 years ago

 

[Web Monkey]

This means that if you "intervene" in an activity by making it safer, people will route around your intervention by acting more recklessly. The most famous example is anti-lock brakes: although cars with anti-lock brakes are statistically safer than cars without, the effect is much, much more modest than predicted by the technology. Supporters of the theory suggest that people drive more recklessly and/or drive vehicles that are harder to control given ABS to save them.

I believe that infrequent resort divers would be safer without DiveMasters because the DMs give a (sometimes false) sense of security. If the divers were on their own, I suspect they would stay shallow and close to shore (or boat) and would generally pay more attention to their dive.



Terry

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

Just because your car has airbags that does not necessarily equate to more dangerous driving. It is still up to the driver to safely navigate the roads.

Agreed.

My point is that when people debate whether a certain piece of equipment is "safer" than a certain type of buddy diving behaviour, we need to distinguish between "safer in theory" and "statistically safer in practice."

If we were to debate whether Diver X is safer with or without a pony bottle, for example, that is a very different matter than discussing whether requiring a pony bottle on all dives deeper than 60' will reduce accidents.

 

[seaducer]

Yes, however my long-winded post above uses the word "perceive" for a reason. People should be free to make fully-informed choices about risk. I have an ethical problem with situations where people are poorly informed about the risks they are assuming.

For example, if I am in my LDS and the inexperienced salesperson tells me that a Spare Air is obviously safer than no spare air, it would be nice if there is someone else to help me understand under what circumstances the spare air actually makes me safer.

If I am perceive that the Spare Air "solves my OOA problem," I may engage in riskier behaviour than if I didn't carry the Spare Air, making me actually less safe with it than without. The problem is not my having the choice of whether to carry the Spare Air, the problem is that my perceptions of risk and how it is affected by carrying a Spare Air are distorted.

Whereas if I truly understand what it can and cannot do for me, I may choose to train more or stay closer to my buddy or save my money for a set of doubles. Again, I have choices, but I really ought to make a choice while fully informed of my options and their trade-offs.

JM2C.

Now I see where this is going. It sort of reads like another way to blame someone else for an individuals shortcomings.

The concept behind safety equipment, or better training, has never been to allow you to push the envelope further. It has always been simply to add another cushion to established practices. Just because some people are not intellectually sound enough to realize a Spare Air is not a substitute for skill, training, and vigilence doesn't mean the store clerk is at fault.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Risk Compensation suggests they will use their new-found skills to dive in more dangerous environments like deco dives, wrecks and caves, trading the increased safety provided by their skills for increased utility. Again, the theory simply predicts that people have a tolerance for risk and will compensate for perceived safety by trying to extract more utility.

I agree with you for the most part.

My full cave instructor made two comments that are relevent to this issue.

He commented that some very good divers he knew over the years gravitated toward a more heavily team based approach and ended up dying in cave diving accidents as they got into situations with that group of divers that were much more hazardous than they would have done otherwise. A contributing factor was an unwillingness to refuse to do a given dive that they personally felt was marginal out of fear they would not be invited to participate in similar expeditions in the future - in short, peer pressure and wanting to conform to the norms and standards of the group crept into the equation along with the greater focus on "team" oriented diving.

He also dicussed solo diving and took a neither support nor condemn appraoch but pointed out that a good team member is very tough to beat in terms of safety, while at the other extreme you are better off being solo, and modifiying your dives or configuration accordingly, than you are diving with an unskilled or dangerous buddy.

So I think you are correct that people are comfortable within a personal range of risk (and one of the things that makes technical diving so popular is the adjustable risk level) and will tend to dive in that range. But at the same time, divers have to be extremely careful to recognize all of the various environmental, training, social and equipment factors and considerations that may change, arise or create unintended consequences that may move the upper or lower limits of that range of "acceptable" risk.

 

[JeffG]

holy cyberdiving batman.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

The concept behind safety equipment, or better training, has never been to allow you to push the envelope further. It has always been simply to add another cushion to established practices. Just because some people are not intellectually sound enough to realize a Spare Air is not a substitute for skill, training, and vigilence doesn't mean the store clerk is at fault.

I don't really agree with that. Technical dive training and cave training has made me a much more proficient open water diver, but that was never the intent in spending bunches of money on safer and more redundant technical dive equipment and training.

You are correct in theory, it just does not work that way in practice. For example the idea behind a pilot carrying an emergency parachute is not to allow the pilot to skydive. However the practical reality is that the emergency parachute allows the pilot to perform aerobatics and push the aircraft and his abilities as a pilot much closer to their respective limits as it provides a potential out if things go badly.

The same logic applies to diving. I don't need a pony bottle if I only dive at depths from which I can make a successful free ascent, but having a pony bottle extends the depth range in which I can dive and survive a given gas failure.

 

[redacted]

Based on this concept, just think how much safer we would all be if we just eliminated the alternate 2nd stage to make divers move towards safer behavior.

Maybe we should also be eliminating seat belts in cars to reduce accidents. Do you think eliminating body armor might reduce casualties in war?

The theory sounds reasonable but we should be careful how it is applied. Our focus should be on risk management (Risk management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) with an understanding of the theory of risk compensation. The risk management process requires an accurate understanding of the risks involved in an activity and of the effectiveness of various potential safety measures. Underestimating risks or overestimating the effectiveness of safety measures is the danger we must guard against.

I'll never understand the diver who will not dive solo but is pleased as punch with some unknown pickup buddy.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

For example the idea behind a pilot carrying an emergency parachute is not to allow the pilot to skydive. However the practical reality is that the emergency parachute allows the pilot to perform aerobatics and push the aircraft and his abilities as a pilot much closer to their respective limits as it provides a potential out if things go badly.

The same logic applies to diving. I don't need a pony bottle if I only dive at depths from which I can make a successful free ascent, but having a pony bottle extends the depth range in which I can dive and survive a given gas failure.

This is what we call "being in violent agreement." When a pilot uses the presence of an emergency parachute to engage in riskier flying, or when a diver uses the presence of a pony bottle to engage in riskier diving, they are behaving as predicted by Risk Compensation.

Risk Compensation is not a negative value judgment on people, simply a prediction about their behaviour that cautions us when attempting to make statements such as "emergency parachutes make pilots safer." Emergency parachutes make pilots safer when they fly the same planes the same ways in the same conditions.

 

[Web Monkey]

I'll never understand the diver who will not dive solo but is pleased as punch with some unknown pickup buddy.

Why dive solo when you can have free rescue practice?

Terry