Before debating skills vs. equipment, please consider Risk Compensation

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

...Now we give some teams pony bottles. We may be tempted to think that the teams with pony bottles are much safer than the teams without. And they may be safer. But the theory tells us that those teams will behave in riskier ways to try to maximize their enjoyment, perhaps by straying further away from their buddies, perhaps by checking their SPGs less often, perhaps by turning their dives much later because "they have plenty of air in reserve."....

Maybe I am an anomaly in this situation. I am still new to this sport, but safety is the number one priority, and that was instilled in me by the instrutor from the start. For me the pony bottle is an emergency only air supply. Using one was a decision that I made during my OW class. I knew that if I had to make an emergency OOA ascent from deeper than 60', the outcome wouldn't be good. Why risk an overexpansion injury or DCS or worse when I could have a simple peace of mind with me. I still monitor my gauges continuously while diving, and always plan to surface with at least 500 psi in my tank as a safety margin. For me, the pony bottle does not exist in my dive unless I need it, and I would never consider using it to extend my bottom time. I have never had to use it, and I hope that I never do, but I will always take it with me just in case

All of these threads on this subject still have one common denominator....TRAINING! If someone learns, not necessarily from an instructor because we all set examples for others, that the redundant systems can be used to get a little extra out of their dive or allows them to take extra risks, then we have all failed. We have failed in promoting safety in the sport that we love.
 
Maybe I am an anomaly in this situation. I am still new to this sport, but safety is the number one priority, and that was instilled in me by the instrutor from the start. For me the pony bottle is an emergency only air supply. Using one was a decision that I made during my OW class. I knew that if I had to make an emergency OOA ascent from deeper than 60', the outcome wouldn't be good. Why risk an overexpansion injury or DCS or worse when I could have a simple peace of mind with me.

What specifically did your instructor train you to do if you are deeper than 60' and you have an OOG emergency?
 
I am not sure I 100% agree with this risk compensation theory. I see where it has some merit, I also see where it is weak and to an extent based on assumptions.

Are people really driving more recklessly because of airbags, ABS, crumple zones and seat belts? Or is the increase in accidents simply proportional to the increase in drivers, and distance traveled daily?
When people are driving recklessly, are they under the impression that technology allows them to drive faster with the same risk? Or is it that they think their skill is good enough, the odds of an accident low enough, or they are just plain ignorant of the danger, or ambivilant with regards to safety to begin with?

With regards to nitrox, I think it depends on what you think the purpose of the gas is as to whether or not you are falling victim to risk compensation. If you think nitrox is to cushion your risk of DCS by limiting your exposure to nitrogen, and then simply overstay the air ndls because your computer says you can, then you are using risk compensation. However if you are choosing a nitrox fill specifically to extend your bottom times, I don't think that counts. In this case you are taking advatage of a specific tool to facilitate a specific result.

Too many variables to say that risk compensation is the method of behavior. The skier who puts a helmet on for black diamond trails but takes it off for the easier trails may be simply using that helmet to compensate for increased risk, as opposed to increasing risk based on the addition of safety equipment. The helmet does not make you a better skier, nor does it change trail conditions. But harder trails make the risk of crashing much higher, so the smart skier adds some gear.

The same thing with beacons for tracking avalanche victims. Only someone who would never venture into the avalanche zone without a tracker, but suddenly goes high country skiing because they have one, is susceptible to risk compensation IMO. Otherwise you are simply using an available tool to mitigate risk in an activity you would be doing anyway.

IDK, just my take on it...
 
Last edited:
Drew, Risk Compensation is an observation about the statistical behaviour of large numbers of people. It cannot be used to explain the behaviour of an individual: each person has their own reasons for choosing equipment or dive profiles or buddies. However, I suggest that in the aggregate, Risk Compensation has something to say to us about the results in the aggregate.

FYI, the automobile studies are carefully balanced to factor out things like increased numbers of cars on the road.
 
What specifically did your instructor train you to do if you are deeper than 60' and you have an OOG emergency?

We were taught both air sharing via an octo and buddy breathing. In either case, the buddy was the source of redundancy. This implies that your buddy is close. Joined at the hip comes to mind.

It's interesting to do buddy breathing or octo air sharing just to pass the time. There doesn't need to be any particular reason. It's just something to do.

Richard
 
Drew, Risk Compensation is an observation about the statistical behaviour of large numbers of people. It cannot be used to explain the behaviour of an individual: each person has their own reasons for choosing equipment or dive profiles or buddies. However, I suggest that in the aggregate, Risk Compensation has something to say to us about the results in the aggregate.

FYI, the automobile studies are carefully balanced to factor out things like increased numbers of cars on the road.

Ok, I am not arguing with you, just trying to understand the principle of the idea.:)

How can we expect to understand the behavior of the aggregate, if we do not take into consideration the behavior of the individuals who make up that aggregate?

As I read this thread (perhaps I should read the wiki you linked to?), I see that risk compensation says that when someone receives equipment or training to limit risk in their activity, they then erase that gain by increasing the risk factor of their behavior.

For example, I read RC to describe a diver who purchases a pony bottle to limit the risk of an OOA scenario but then increases the chances of running out of air by checking spg infrequently, diving deeper, or staying down longer than they would without the bottle.

Is this correct? If so, it suggests that people are increasing risk in a subconcious manner based on a sense of security. I.E. thinking they are safer when if fact they are not.

How does the diver who makes a conscious decision to purchase equipment, because they intend to exceed current limits factor into the RC theory?

If RC simply means that with the addition of x we can expect y, and it doesn't care about the mechanisims to get to y, then I guess I am wasting bytes for nothing.

But if it tries to also explain the reason behind that behavior, it needs to know why individuals make the choices they do.

And FWIW I am skeptical of any observations as to why the number of auto accidents is where it is. There are simply too many variables to make an accurate prediction. The increased number of drivers should not equal a similar increase in risk, as there are too many differences between driver skill, physical ability, car agility, maintenence state of vehicles and roads, weather, individual attentiveness, interior and exterior distractions, etc. etc. etc. While certainly some drivers are more reckless because they have acquired certain safety equipment, I don't think one can say with any degree of certainty that most drivers who crash or drive recklessly do so with any consideration to safety equipment at all.

And while almost every driver will say they feel safer because of an airbag, ABS, etc, I also challenge that. Many drivers have never experienced driving a vehicle that is not equipped with those features, and those of us who have driven cars without them, it has been so long ago that it is very difficult to draw a comparison between the experiences.

Again, that is just how I am reading things, and it may have no bearing on reality...
 
As I read this thread (perhaps I should read the wiki you linked to?), I see that risk compensation says that when someone receives equipment or training to limit risk in their activity, they then erase that gain by increasing the risk factor of their behavior.

Not quite correct. The theory says that person may moderate the change in risk by also changing their risk behavior.

That is, one individual may add a pony and make no changes to their diving behavior. Yet another individual may add that pony and reduce his back gas reserve requirements, thus offsetting some of the risk reduction. Yet another may add that pony and then decide he is OK now to conduct wreck penetrations.

The theory says that "on the average" the population will tend to change their behavior somewhat based on the perceived risk reduction and that change will tend towards (compensating) riskier behavior.
 
... For me the pony bottle is an emergency only air supply. Using one was a decision that I made during my OW class. I knew that if I had to make an emergency OOA ascent from deeper than 60', the outcome wouldn't be good.
Suspend your disbelief for a moment and accept the idea that you can be provided with a solely skill based solution to making an Emergency Swimming Ascent. OK? How would that effect your decision to use a pony? If you were, in fact, completely comfortable and practiced in this technique would you assess your need for a pony to be any different? Would it then be (as I suggest) an evaluation of the failure modes of the two approaches and an evaluation of the equipment and training maintenance that each requires?
I am not sure I 100% agree with this risk compensation theory. I see where it has some merit, I also see where it is weak and to an extent based on assumptions.

Are people really driving more recklessly because of airbags, ABS, crumple zones and seat belts? Or is the increase in accidents simply proportional to the increase in drivers, and distance traveled daily?
When people are driving recklessly, are they under the impression that technology allows them to drive faster with the same risk? Or is it that they think their skill is good enough, the odds of an accident low enough, or they are just plain ignorant of the danger, or ambivilant with regards to safety to begin with?

With regards to nitrox, I think it depends on what you think the purpose of the gas is as to whether or not you are falling victim to risk compensation. If you think nitrox is to cushion your risk of DCS by limiting your exposure to nitrogen, and then simply overstay the air ndls because your computer says you can, then you are using risk compensation. However if you are choosing a nitrox fill specifically to extend your bottom times, I don't think that counts. In this case you are taking advatage of a specific tool to facilitate a specific result.

Too many variables to say that risk compensation is the method of behavior. The skier who puts a helmet on for black diamond trails but takes it off for the easier trails may be simply using that helmet to compensate for increased risk, as opposed to increasing risk based on the addition of safety equipment. The helmet does not make you a better skier, nor does it change trail conditions. But harder trails make the risk of crashing much higher, so the smart skier adds some gear.

The same thing with beacons for tracking avalanche victims. Only someone who would never venture into the avalanche zone without a tracker, but suddenly goes high country skiing because they have one, is susceptible to risk compensation IMO. Otherwise you are simply using an available tool to mitigate risk in an activity you would be doing anyway.

IDK, just my take on it...
I think it often becomes a question of "splitting the difference." As I noted earlier, I was a very early convert to EAN, I use(d) it with air tables, but when diving EAN I push those air air tables closer to the limits than I would if I were diving air.
... As I read this thread (perhaps I should read the wiki you linked to?), I see that risk compensation says that when someone receives equipment or training to limit risk in their activity, they then erase that gain by increasing the risk factor of their behavior.
I'd more say that they erase some or all of the gain, rarely even placing themselves in more danger than they might have without the new equipment or training.
For example, I read RC to describe a diver who purchases a pony bottle to limit the risk of an OOA scenario but then increases the chances of running out of air by checking spg infrequently, diving deeper, or staying down longer than they would without the bottle.

Is this correct? If so, it suggests that people are increasing risk in a subconcious manner based on a sense of security. I.E. thinking they are safer when if fact they are not.

How does the diver who makes a conscious decision to purchase equipment, because they intend to exceed current limits factor into the RC theory?

If RC simply means that with the addition of x we can expect y, and it doesn't care about the mechanisims to get to y, then I guess I am wasting bytes for nothing.

But if it tries to also explain the reason behind that behavior, it needs to know why individuals make the choices they do.

And FWIW I am skeptical of any observations as to why the number of auto accidents is where it is. There are simply too many variables to make an accurate prediction. The increased number of drivers should not equal a similar increase in risk, as there are too many differences between driver skill, physical ability, car agility, maintenence state of vehicles and roads, weather, individual attentiveness, interior and exterior distractions, etc. etc. etc. While certainly some drivers are more reckless because they have acquired certain safety equipment, I don't think one can say with any degree of certainty that most drivers who crash or drive recklessly do so with any consideration to safety equipment at all.

And while almost every driver will say they feel safer because of an airbag, ABS, etc, I also challenge that. Many drivers have never experienced driving a vehicle that is not equipped with those features, and those of us who have driven cars without them, it has been so long ago that it is very difficult to draw a comparison between the experiences.

Again, that is just how I am reading things, and it may have no bearing on reality...
It's like a cliff. When people are at the top of sheer cliff that lacks a fence or wall they tend to stay back a bit. Add a pipe railing and some will go right up to it, add a masonry wall and some will sit on on and dangle their feet over the edge, etc. In each case the fence or wall indeed reduces the risk, but given the reduced risk people are more willing to unconsciously extend themselves. My train of thought, at the moment, involves training people to recognize this propensity and to make conscious decisions concerning how much risk reductuion a piece of gear or new technique provides and how much further they are willing to extend themselves in light of both that risk reduction and the new risks that every piece of gear or technique introduce.
 
Drew, Risk Compensation is an observation about the statistical behaviour of large numbers of people. It cannot be used to explain the behaviour of an individual: each person has their own reasons for choosing equipment or dive profiles or buddies. However, I suggest that in the aggregate, Risk Compensation has something to say to us about the results in the aggregate.

FYI, the automobile studies are carefully balanced to factor out things like increased numbers of cars on the road.

While statistical data can be used to measure the effects of risk compensation, it is a direct result of individual risk management decisions. We all do it every day in many subtle ways. We decide what neighborhoods we are or not willing to venture into at night based on how safe we think they are, and how safe we are. Whether we are male or female, big or small, armed or not all enter into the calculus, altering the risk computation that factors into the final decision.

Many of us probably would not be diving at all, if not for our perception that it's relatively safe. Decisions as to how deep we're willing to go or whether we'd enter caves or wrecks are made based on our perceptions of how safe our training and equipment make us.

When someone decides that no way would he do a deep dive on an AL80 without a pony, he's making a risk assessment. Everything we do is based on a calculation that we are managing to stay within our personal definition of "acceptable" risk. We don't demand zero risk, only that it's within our personal threshold.

There isn't any problem with risk compensation per se, it's a smart way to manage our lives. The problem is that our perceptions are not always in line with reality. They're distorted by emotions, and faulty assumptions about ourselves and the world around us.

Simple example to think about for yourself. How close would you venture to the edge of a cliff? Would you go closer if you knew it was only a 10 foot drop vs. 1,000 feet? Would you go closer in the right shoes vs. flip flops? Dry, wet or Icy. What if there was a guard rail?

You've just made a series of risk calculations, but imagine for a moment that ideal conditions and a steel guardrail convinced you that it was safe to lean out for the view, but unfortunately that solid looking rail was actually rusted through.

Regardless of what the coroners report might say, death was direct result of the gap between the real and your percieved risk.
 
Last edited:
Obviously the individual still overrides the "average". Many people with 4WD do drive more aggressively in the snow than if they didn't have it. Many do not however. You may only remember those who were driving more aggressively.

I have a larger tank (119 cu ft) but I didn't get it when I was newer and my SAC was higher. I wanted to wait for my air consumption to get as low as it was going to get and then I decided to get a larger tank.

I didn't get a pony bottle when I first started diving. I had close to 200 dives when I got one. My decision making was probably different than that of a newer diver deciding to use a pony bottle.

You can't look at equipment and then know why someone decided to choose that equipment or make inferences as to how they think or use that equipment. You can but you will be wrong much of the time.
 

Back
Top Bottom