Bolas 5
Recommended Posts
Remster 24
Ask yourself how many jumpers you've known that have died jumping. Then ask yourself how many jumpers you've known have died in car accidents. For me, my first number was waaay bigger.![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
That.
Remster
jshiloh 0
QuoteTell people skydiving is safer than driving a car or crossing the street, but they still say skydiving is dangerous. Now just smile and walk away. Kind of like spitting into the wind.
You can tell people anything you want, it doesn't make it true. The problem with relying on statistics to demonstrate safety is the fact that statistics can be manipulated into "proving" anything you want.
If you want to show skydiving is safer than driving a car, you do what the USPA & similar folks do. You look at total number of deaths caused by each activity, including vehicle passengers & pedestrians. You compare the fatality rates based on the number of fatalities per 1000 participants. And you use "estimates" that are nearly impossible to verify.
If you want to show skydiving is more dangerous, you limit the comparison to active participants (so exclude pedestrian, bicycle & possibly passenger fatalities). You compare the number of fatalities per 1000 miles (or other distance traveled) rather than per participant, since since even skydivers spend a LOT more time in a car than they do in the air.
One set of statistics will "prove" that you're more likely to die on your way to/from the DZ in your car. The other will "prove" it's about 2000 times more likely you'll die skydiving. Statistics are used to reinforce already existing belief, not prove anything. And that's the problem with relying on statistics, especially ones put out/promoted by someone with a bias.
The reason skydiving is considered so dangerous is because of the risk/benefit value, not the risk alone. Cars have a significant benefit to the user & society in general. For most people, vehicles of some sort (car, bus, taxi, etc) are a literal necessity for daily life. Skydiving's only benefit is personal entertainment. Puting your life at risk just for fun is "unsafe." Taking the same risk in order to function/survive in society isn't.
QuoteQuoteTell people skydiving is safer than driving a car or crossing the street, but they still say skydiving is dangerous. Now just smile and walk away. Kind of like spitting into the wind.
You can tell people anything you want, it doesn't make it true. The problem with relying on statistics to demonstrate safety is the fact that statistics can be manipulated into "proving" anything you want.
If you want to show skydiving is safer than driving a car, you do what the USPA & similar folks do. You look at total number of deaths caused by each activity, including vehicle passengers & pedestrians. You compare the fatality rates based on the number of fatalities per 1000 participants. And you use "estimates" that are nearly impossible to verify.
If you want to show skydiving is more dangerous, you limit the comparison to active participants (so exclude pedestrian, bicycle & possibly passenger fatalities). You compare the number of fatalities per 1000 miles (or other distance traveled) rather than per participant, since since even skydivers spend a LOT more time in a car than they do in the air.
One set of statistics will "prove" that you're more likely to die on your way to/from the DZ in your car. The other will "prove" it's about 2000 times more likely you'll die skydiving. Statistics are used to reinforce already existing belief, not prove anything. And that's the problem with relying on statistics, especially ones put out/promoted by someone with a bias.
The reason skydiving is considered so dangerous is because of the risk/benefit value, not the risk alone. Cars have a significant benefit to the user & society in general. For most people, vehicles of some sort (car, bus, taxi, etc) are a literal necessity for daily life. Skydiving's only benefit is personal entertainment. Puting your life at risk just for fun is "unsafe." Taking the same risk in order to function/survive in society isn't.
That spurred a few thoughts.
1. 73.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
2. My very aged grandmother, late 80s, early 90s, once advised me regarding my jumping "You don't need to be taking any unnecessary risks." I suggested that her going on a 150 mile trip to visit her sister was also endangering her live unnecessarily.
I had another thought but statistically, and due to my age, I lose 27.43% of all thoughts if not acted upon immediately.
Totally off topic, but the same grandmother was lamenting the 100 degree heat one summer Sunday afternoon while visiting for dinner. I asked her "Grandma, when you were growing up, there was no air-conditioning, what did people do then." Kind of being sarcastic, and suggesting that she had gone soft. Her response "People died." She got me on that one!
But yes, statistics are driven by a political agenda and therefore bullshit.
Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.
AC DZ
AC DZ
Bolas 5
Slight edit:
If unbiased, and proper and consistent data collection and criteria used, statistics can be very useful.
Quote
But yes, statisticsarewhen driven by a political agendaand thereforeare bullshit.
If unbiased, and proper and consistent data collection and criteria used, statistics can be very useful.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
JohnMitchell 14
QuoteAnd conversely, those who aren't involved tend to overestimate the danger involved. It's called a "pussy defense mechanism"
That's great. I'm gonna use that some time and pretend I thought it up. Thanks.
JohnMitchell 14
I've heard statistics called the most powerful medical tool of the last 100 years.Quote
If unbiased, and proper and consistent data collection and criteria used, statistics can be very useful.
You're absolutely right, Mr. Bolas.
Skyper 0
QuoteSlight edit:
Quote
But yes, statisticsarewhen driven by a political agendaand thereforeare bullshit.
If unbiased, and proper and consistent data collection and criteria used, statistics can be very useful.
some time ago I came across the statistical report regarding the fatal skydiving accidents in US. I cannot find it now, but what I can recall was:
Chance of fatal accident per 1000 particpants:
Motorbike driving 0,2% per year
Skydiving 1,1% per year
IMHO, one of the flaws of that report was the fact that they've calculated all registered motorbike drivers and not only the active population of them.
So, by what factor if skydiving were to grow would the number of fatalities bring an end to the sport?
Actually, the political direction may be headed such that Professional Football is soon banned. It seems to be causing brain and other damage at quite a bit higher rate than skydiving. But then "we" love our football, and there's a hell of a lot of money involved.
If we keep bullshitting people that "it's safer than driving" or whatever nonsense get's peddled to get people to do a tandem it will be sooner than if we admit it's risky.
Things may have been better when the general public reaction to a skydiving death was, "Some actually live? Oh well, one less crazy person."
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites