DAN national fatality stats

[Shot a man in Reno...]

I think that the important comparison would be the number of dives made per death vs the number of car trips taken per death.

But then it doesn't really matter how the numbers come out: I'll continue to dive and drive, generally not at the same time.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

If you are concerned about the probability of a given rate per unit something, then you are correct.

You had me at "then you are correct." Why not just stop there?

- Ken

 

[Thalassamania]

Because if that's what you want, you are correct, but the data is not of the quality you actually need to get there so you are likely to draw erroneous conclusions, ignorant of the fact that you have done so. It's a classic problem with statistics, especially safety statistics that are expressed in occurrences per what-ever.

 

[CT-Rich]

I think some generalizations about the dive industry could be made when making rough comparisons from decade to decade. I am certainly not an expert on either the growth of the dive industry or statistics. But, if you look at some crude measures of the size of the industry, for example, the overall size of the dive industry or estimates about the size of dive tourism, you should be able to make generalized statements comparing the growth of the industry and the safety. If the industry doubles or triples revinues you can guess it was growing. I think one of the problems with statistics is that when you start collecting data, people can get very uncomfortable. The auto industry fought the manditory instalation of seat belts because they were worried that it implied cars were unsafe. Likewise, the NRA lobbied to for the gun death statistics to be removed from collection by the dept. of Health on the federal level.

 

[Thalassamania]

Let me give you an example of why dollars are a bad measure unless they can be partitioned into say, training, gear, travel, etc.

When I was young and traveling to dive in the Caribbean I was (as as almost everyone, except the boat people) what would now be described as a "backpacker," traveling on a shoestring and spending little or no money. Contrast that with people going to, say, a resort on Grand Cayman today, and spending perhaps $500 a day when all is said and done ... that's more than I used to spend on the entire trip, including plane fair. So one person like that probably makes up for twenty people like me.

 

[CT-Rich]

Let me give you an example of why dollars are a bad measure unless they can be partitioned into say, training, gear, travel, etc.

When I was young and traveling to dive in the Caribbean I was (as as almost everyone, except the boat people) what would now be described as a "backpacker," traveling on a shoestring and spending little or no money. Contrast that with people going to, say, a resort on Grand Cayman today, and spending perhaps $500 a day when all is said and done ... that's more than I used to spend on the entire trip, including plane fair. So one person like that probably makes up for twenty people like me.

Point taken, but I doubt the industry as a whole is particularly interested in having stomach for collecting data. Fatality statistics are a double edged sword. Yo can show how much safer it is today, but then people start talking about how dangerous the sport can be... not something a tourist destination or regulator manufacturer wants novices to think about when laying down piles of cash. Better to talk-up the wonderful full service accomidations or ease of breathing and reliability. Sound much better than saying hardly anyone dies using our brand..... or, only two people died of embolisms last year...

Of course most sports are like this. Think about the numbers of people hurt on skate boards or popwarner football. Diving does have the benefit of being a sport that encourages knowledge and safe practices.

 

[Thalassamania]

I agree with you up to the last sentence. My major problem with the diving industry is the the drumbeat of how safe it is, how minimal the risks are and how it is sold on that basis to people who really don't have the knowledge that it takes to judge the claims.

 

[CT-Rich]

I agree with you up to the last sentence. My major problem with the diving industry is the the drumbeat of how safe it is, how minimal the risks are and how it is sold on that basis to people who really don't have the knowledge that it takes to judge the claims.

I agree, I said the sport( i.e. the dive community)... the industry tends to candy wrap the risks, which was my point about them not neccessarily being interested in statistics. but if you look at the discussions that go on here and see how many divers are willing to cultivate new divers in safe practices. The sport has a good track record. And even in the industry, there are always new innovations that increase safety, the octopus, BCD, power inflators, dive computers, noodles and even the multitude of certs are all about improving safety (okay, making money, but they do improve safety). The industry frequently candy coats some of the risks, but that the gov't doesn't have massive programs regulating the dive industry and dive community is probably a sign of reasonably successful self-policing. Not perfect, but reasonable...

If you look at the statistics the Ken posted, the data supports this. Even though data collection in the 1970s was probably cruder, and the dive community has almost certainly been growing, The numbers of fatalities has been decreasing at steady rate. Of course, we are back to the original question of what does the data mean?