DeNReN 0 #26 November 3, 2003 Stats can be manipulated to prove just about anything....If we relied on such things.....Microsoft could have us believing that Bill Gates is poor I believe there are too many varibles to acuratly debate the skydiving vs driving saftey issue. I am also sure...that more skydivers(you must include all ppl who have jumped..once or 10,000 times) have died in automobile accidents than have died participating in our wonderfull sport. Again...way to many varibles and way too many ways to interpet the stats.... I await being corrected Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #27 November 3, 2003 QuoteStats can be manipulated to prove just about anything....If we relied on such things.....Microsoft could have us believing that Bill Gates is poor I believe there are too many varibles to acuratly debate the skydiving vs driving saftey issue. I am also sure...that more skydivers(you must include all ppl who have jumped..once or 10,000 times) have died in automobile accidents than have died participating in our wonderfull sport. Again...way to many varibles and way too many ways to interpet the stats.... I await being corrected The point that was made in the other thread that was linked is that the whole thing of stats being made to look like anything only holds true when you don't know anything about statistics. Things like whitholding data, and not being honest etc. In reality statistics is a pretty scientific method.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #28 November 3, 2003 >Stats can be manipulated to prove just about anything.... Well, I'd disagree there. If you ask open-ended questions you can get any answer you want. For example - is skydiving safer than driving? At a high enough level, you could call them equally as safe in the long run, since no matter what you do you'll be dead in 100 years. Is a typical skydiver more likely to die, over the course of a year, than a typical driver? Yes, by a large margin. If you make a single jump (i.e. a tandem) are you more likely to be killed by that one jump than by driving for the rest of your life? No; the (small) risk of driving accumulates with time, and after driving for six years or so your odds of getting killed get higher than for that one jump you did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #29 November 3, 2003 Instead of just completely DELETING (which is at first what I just came in here to do, and leaving the huge (????) -WTF for those that I know have ALREADY read this, I will instead simply retract it for now, until my brain kicks back in to a better gear. I've had a hard day at work, and I'll simply step aside and let those more coherent, instead carry on in my stead. I'm tired (and sick right now -literally). I think I'll go home & go to bed. You guys all "carry on" for a bit without me okay? Blue Skies, -Grantcoitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeNReN 0 #30 November 3, 2003 OK...the skydiving vs driving has been flogged near to death.....how about... Skydiving vs Running with Sissors! (pointed up of course!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cruzit 0 #31 November 4, 2003 FYI...found this while researching. How Dangerous is Skydiving? Skydiving is a remarkably popular sport. The United States Parachuting Association has 34,000 members. It estimates that about 350,000 people complete more than 3 million jumps in a typical year. The big question is always, "How dangerous is skydiving?" Each year, about 30 people die in parachuting accidents in the United States, or roughly one person per 100,000 jumps. Look at the US Skydiving Incident Reports to get an idea of the types of problems that lead to fatalities. If you make one jump in a year, your chance of dying is 1 in 100,000. How does the fatality rate in skydiving compare to other common activities? Since most adults in America drive cars, let's compare skydiving to driving. Roughly 40,000 people die each year in traffic accidents in the United States [ref]. That's 1.7 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. Therefore, if you drive 10,000 miles per year, your chance of dying in a car wreck in any given year is something like 1 in 6,000. In other words, we accept a higher level of risk by getting into our cars every day than people do by occasionally skydiving. You would have to jump 17 times per year for your risk of dying in a skydiving accident to equal your risk of dying in a car accident if you drive 10,000 miles per year. A logical question to ask here is this: Given these statistics, why do we think of skydiving as dangerous and driving a car as safe? The first reason has to do with frequency. At 30 per year, fatal skydiving accidents are infrequent. That tends to make each one newsworthy, so you are likely to hear about them. On the other hand, there are about 110 fatal car accidents every day in the U.S. In a city of one million people, 160 people die every year in car accidents. If you heard about every car accident, you would go insane, so you only hear about a few of them. That leaves you with the impression that car accidents are infrequent even though they happen constantly. The second reason has to do with familiarity. Most people drive every day and nothing bad happens. So our personal experience leads us to believe that driving is safe. It is only when you look at the aggregated statistics that you realize how dangerous driving really is. Okay...I agree...this has been flogged to death. Lets talk about something interesting instead like dental work without anesthesia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
larry 0 #32 November 4, 2003 QuoteIf you look at skydiving as the act of committing suicide and intervening at the last moment (kind of like playing chicken with the planet), it's hard to put normal traffic patterns in the same category.I am not arguing which is safer. I’m just saying this is not a valid argument. If you are going 60 mph and you fail to stop at the next light or turn the wheel when the road curves you could die too. There are many activities each day that could kill us through our actions or inactions. QuoteStats can be manipulated to prove just about anything....67% of all people know that!“Now click your heels together 3 times so you can return to Kansas to live in poverty with your teetotaling, dirt farming aunt and uncle!” paraphrased Prof. Farnsworth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 November 4, 2003 QuoteStats can be manipulated to prove just about anything....If we relied on such things.....Microsoft could have us believing that Bill Gates is poor I believe there are too many varibles to acuratly debate the skydiving vs driving saftey issue. Yes, statistics can be used to lie, and there is good money in doing it in the political realm. But a proper statistical analysis is not that hard to do here. You do have to make an estimation of the average miles driven and average speed, as well as the annual number of jumps in a year, but it's not that hard to get acceptable ballpark figures. The USPA would like to compare 15,000 miles of driving to 17 jumps. This would be a good example of lying with statistics. One involves 375 hours (assuming a rather high average speed of 45mph) and the other involves 20 minutes of freefall, along with perhaps 2-3 hours in the plane. You can't disregard the exposure time. Why is it more dangerous, besides the obvious? Skydiving doesn't allow for much in the way of mistakes. Drivers make mistakes every day without penalty. One involves 15seconds before the ground enters the equation. The other has airbags, seatbelts, and crumplezones. It usually takes multiple errors for a car accident to happen. You only need to make one. The scuba equlivient to this discussion is: "you're more likely to get in a car accident than be bitten by a shark." And that one absolutely is true. People get in far more accidents, and tend to spend as much time driving to the ocean as they spend underneath it. But divers, especially new ones, worry a lot about Jaws. Last though - if you have something invested in the belief that driving is more dangerous, ask yourself why. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samhussey 0 #34 November 4, 2003 For me skydiving is much safer than driving, because I can't drive. Never even had one lesson. But thats just me... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #35 November 4, 2003 Mmm. I have 48 hours of freefall time. I've broken my femur, and my ankle, and I've seen 20 dead people in the persuit of those 48 hours. I've certainly been out in the field over some broken person more than 48 times, and I've known all these people. By comparison, I've driven past a few car wrecks, seen bodies strewn across the road - but never people I know. I think skydiving is dangerous. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #36 November 4, 2003 QuoteFor me skydiving is much safer than driving, because I can't drive. Never even had one lesson. But thats just me... Quite the contrary - for you driving is extremely unsafe.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #37 November 4, 2003 Without disputing your numbers, 17 skydives puts you at risk for about 85 minutes (freefall +canopy time). Driving 10,000 miles takes around 200 hours. So each minute you spend skydiving gives you around 140 times the risk of dying than each minute spent driving.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skream 0 #38 November 4, 2003 This whole question of what is safer has already been answered by the insurance companies. Try to get life insurance if you're a skydiver, vs just a licensed driver. Don't knock them for being ignorant or anything... they live off stats and are just like handicappers at a horse race. They're betting on you... betting you won't die (for a long time.)--- Michael Teator Lexington, Kentucky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites The111 0 #39 November 4, 2003 QuoteMmm. I have 48 hours of freefall time. I've broken my femur, and my ankle, and I've seen 20 dead people in the persuit of those 48 hours. I've certainly been out in the field over some broken person more than 48 times, and I've known all these people. By comparison, I've driven past a few car wrecks, seen bodies strewn across the road - but never people I know. I think skydiving is dangerous. t I agree that skydiving is probably more dangerous. But think about this. At the DZ you jump at, you probably know 90-100% of the population there (I'm ASSuming obviously). So when something happens, of course you know the person. At the highway you drive on, you probably know 0-10% of the population there. So when something happens, it's not surprising if you don't know the person.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites samhussey 0 #40 November 4, 2003 Thats what I said, isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scrumpot 1 #41 November 4, 2003 Touché! ...Score one for the noob! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 259 #42 November 4, 2003 QuoteAt the DZ you jump at, you probably know 90-100% of the population there (I'm ASSuming obviously). So when something happens, of course you know the person. At the highway you drive on, you probably know 0-10% of the population there. So when something happens, it's not surprising if you don't know the person. I lived in a city of 50,000 people for the last 7 years. IIRC in that time there were maybe 10 car accidents that took the life of a local resident. Assume a "active, experienced" skydiver population base of 50,000 in the US. In the same time frame as reference above there were more than 100 incidents that resulted in the loss of a jumper's life. We can twist statistics to say whatever we want them to say. I feel that skydiving is far more dangerous than driving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites The111 0 #43 November 4, 2003 QuoteWe can twist statistics to say whatever we want them to say. I feel that skydiving is far more dangerous than driving. So do I, which is the one part of my post you neglected to quote. I was not trying to manipulate statistics (which I rarely draw conclusions from), but I was pointing out what I considere a reason for Tonto's observation: that freeway deaths he witnesses are strangers, and DZ deaths he witnesses are friends.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DeNReN 0 #44 November 5, 2003 So...is skydiving more dangerous than driving? Hmmm...I think so....as I said to another forum member the other day..."if I did not think skydiving was dangerous...I'd prob just drive back and forth to the DZ every day to get my thrills" Are you more likely to have a accident driving compared to skydiving? Hmmm...I think so..... Would you stand a better chance of surviving a driving accident compared to a skydiving accident....HELL YES! Lets face it ppl.....We jump for the rush...and there is no other rush like it......I've been wheel to wheel in a 2800lb,550hp purpose built road race car... deep into the braking zone..great rush...but it dosent compare to the sensation of skydiving...even with my limited jumps. So is skydiving more dangerous than driving?....Who really cares?....all I know...is that I'd perfer to jump than drive...anyday Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #45 November 5, 2003 I don't think it's about who you know. Including canopy time, my exposure runs at about 200 hours. (I have a lot of CReW) That's about 8 days either in freefall or under canopy. 2 fractures from seperate incidents in 8 days. Witness to multiple injuries and deaths. It's quite possible that what the US is currently experiencing in Iraq (Av one death per day) is less dangerous than skydiving. Kid yourself if you will, but what we do is no game. Agreed, it's not as dangerous as BASE or solo climbing - but it's certainly more dangerous than Formula 1 racing, which most people consider more risky than regular driving. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #46 November 5, 2003 Tonto's comparison is possibly the most accurate one yet... time spent in skydiving vs time spent driving. If you add it up like that you get to see which is more dangerous. The only alterations I would make are that you should include time spent in the plane going to altitude (eg 18 killed in Russia earlier in the year when a let410 fell appart) and time spent at the landing area itself (eg 1 killed at netheravon a couple of months ago when hit by a swooper). these are two periods where you are still exposed to the increased risk of skydiving. Time on the actual DZ I do not think counts. Whilst carries a slightly increased risk (if in doubt check an insuance policy, many are voided the moment you step onto an airfield) time on the DZ in spectator areas is more analogous to time spent as a pedestrian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites The111 0 #47 November 5, 2003 QuoteI don't think it's about who you know. Kid yourself if you will, but what we do is no game. If this is directed at me, I'll repeat for the second time in this thread that I do believe skydiving is immensely more dangerous than driving. My comment was slightly off topic in that respect... I was offering a possible reason for why you knew the people who died at the DZ and not on the road. This point is unrelated to "which actvity is more dangerous?". Even if you saw 500 deaths on the road a month you'd still be unlikely to know many of them, since on the road we are generally encased in a metal box surrounded by strangers in metal boxes. Even if only 1 person at the DZ died every 5 years, you'd still have a pretty good chance of knowing him if it was a small local DZ you worked at. I'm sorry if my point got misinterpreted... as I said I got slightly off-topic, and my post in no way was trying to even compare the relative danger of the two things anymore. I just wanted to comment on what you said about your personal relation to traffic victims vs. skydiving victims.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #48 November 5, 2003 QuoteI don't think it's about who you know. was directed at you. QuoteKid yourself if you will, but what we do is no game. was directed at those people who have a couple of years and a couple of hundred jumps who have not yet seen their peers ripped limb from limb in their pursuit of happiness. Sorry about the misunderstanding. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Geoff 0 #49 November 5, 2003 Quote 1 killed at netheravon a couple of months ago when hit by a swooper I must correct this - nobody was killed in the swooping accident, but 2 people sustained serious injuries. Geoff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rendezvous 0 #50 November 5, 2003 Driving fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers 22.06 (2001 statistics used) Driving fatalities per 100,000 population 14.86. Skydiving fatalities on average, don't even come close to this. 2,000,000 jumps in any given year with general fatalities falling under 30 per year. If you exclude the fatalities which arise from skydivers killed in a plane going in, the fatality rate is lower. Not quite. The comparison is not parallel. Licensed Drivers and a populations of people cannot be logically compared to number of jumps. 30 fatalities per 2 million jumps needs to be compared to something like # of car accidents per 2 million outings of cars. A slightly more balanced approach would be if you compared fatalities against the average time of exposure to risk. e.g is an average outing in a car lasts 15 min and an average Skydive lasts 1 min, assuming the risk is evenly distributed over the time span ( just to keep things simple ) then time exposure to risk is: 1 * 100,000 min per 100,000 Skydives and 15 min * 100,000 per 100,000 outings of a car.That would make your fatality number of approx 30 for both cases look more like Skydiving 30 per 100,000 min Driving 30 per 1500,000 min Time of exposure to risk vs fatalities or injuries in that period make driving much safer and base jumping probably much more challenging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Tonto 1 #35 November 4, 2003 Mmm. I have 48 hours of freefall time. I've broken my femur, and my ankle, and I've seen 20 dead people in the persuit of those 48 hours. I've certainly been out in the field over some broken person more than 48 times, and I've known all these people. By comparison, I've driven past a few car wrecks, seen bodies strewn across the road - but never people I know. I think skydiving is dangerous. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #36 November 4, 2003 QuoteFor me skydiving is much safer than driving, because I can't drive. Never even had one lesson. But thats just me... Quite the contrary - for you driving is extremely unsafe.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #37 November 4, 2003 Without disputing your numbers, 17 skydives puts you at risk for about 85 minutes (freefall +canopy time). Driving 10,000 miles takes around 200 hours. So each minute you spend skydiving gives you around 140 times the risk of dying than each minute spent driving.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skream 0 #38 November 4, 2003 This whole question of what is safer has already been answered by the insurance companies. Try to get life insurance if you're a skydiver, vs just a licensed driver. Don't knock them for being ignorant or anything... they live off stats and are just like handicappers at a horse race. They're betting on you... betting you won't die (for a long time.)--- Michael Teator Lexington, Kentucky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #39 November 4, 2003 QuoteMmm. I have 48 hours of freefall time. I've broken my femur, and my ankle, and I've seen 20 dead people in the persuit of those 48 hours. I've certainly been out in the field over some broken person more than 48 times, and I've known all these people. By comparison, I've driven past a few car wrecks, seen bodies strewn across the road - but never people I know. I think skydiving is dangerous. t I agree that skydiving is probably more dangerous. But think about this. At the DZ you jump at, you probably know 90-100% of the population there (I'm ASSuming obviously). So when something happens, of course you know the person. At the highway you drive on, you probably know 0-10% of the population there. So when something happens, it's not surprising if you don't know the person.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samhussey 0 #40 November 4, 2003 Thats what I said, isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #41 November 4, 2003 Touché! ...Score one for the noob! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #42 November 4, 2003 QuoteAt the DZ you jump at, you probably know 90-100% of the population there (I'm ASSuming obviously). So when something happens, of course you know the person. At the highway you drive on, you probably know 0-10% of the population there. So when something happens, it's not surprising if you don't know the person. I lived in a city of 50,000 people for the last 7 years. IIRC in that time there were maybe 10 car accidents that took the life of a local resident. Assume a "active, experienced" skydiver population base of 50,000 in the US. In the same time frame as reference above there were more than 100 incidents that resulted in the loss of a jumper's life. We can twist statistics to say whatever we want them to say. I feel that skydiving is far more dangerous than driving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #43 November 4, 2003 QuoteWe can twist statistics to say whatever we want them to say. I feel that skydiving is far more dangerous than driving. So do I, which is the one part of my post you neglected to quote. I was not trying to manipulate statistics (which I rarely draw conclusions from), but I was pointing out what I considere a reason for Tonto's observation: that freeway deaths he witnesses are strangers, and DZ deaths he witnesses are friends.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeNReN 0 #44 November 5, 2003 So...is skydiving more dangerous than driving? Hmmm...I think so....as I said to another forum member the other day..."if I did not think skydiving was dangerous...I'd prob just drive back and forth to the DZ every day to get my thrills" Are you more likely to have a accident driving compared to skydiving? Hmmm...I think so..... Would you stand a better chance of surviving a driving accident compared to a skydiving accident....HELL YES! Lets face it ppl.....We jump for the rush...and there is no other rush like it......I've been wheel to wheel in a 2800lb,550hp purpose built road race car... deep into the braking zone..great rush...but it dosent compare to the sensation of skydiving...even with my limited jumps. So is skydiving more dangerous than driving?....Who really cares?....all I know...is that I'd perfer to jump than drive...anyday Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #45 November 5, 2003 I don't think it's about who you know. Including canopy time, my exposure runs at about 200 hours. (I have a lot of CReW) That's about 8 days either in freefall or under canopy. 2 fractures from seperate incidents in 8 days. Witness to multiple injuries and deaths. It's quite possible that what the US is currently experiencing in Iraq (Av one death per day) is less dangerous than skydiving. Kid yourself if you will, but what we do is no game. Agreed, it's not as dangerous as BASE or solo climbing - but it's certainly more dangerous than Formula 1 racing, which most people consider more risky than regular driving. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #46 November 5, 2003 Tonto's comparison is possibly the most accurate one yet... time spent in skydiving vs time spent driving. If you add it up like that you get to see which is more dangerous. The only alterations I would make are that you should include time spent in the plane going to altitude (eg 18 killed in Russia earlier in the year when a let410 fell appart) and time spent at the landing area itself (eg 1 killed at netheravon a couple of months ago when hit by a swooper). these are two periods where you are still exposed to the increased risk of skydiving. Time on the actual DZ I do not think counts. Whilst carries a slightly increased risk (if in doubt check an insuance policy, many are voided the moment you step onto an airfield) time on the DZ in spectator areas is more analogous to time spent as a pedestrian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 0 #47 November 5, 2003 QuoteI don't think it's about who you know. Kid yourself if you will, but what we do is no game. If this is directed at me, I'll repeat for the second time in this thread that I do believe skydiving is immensely more dangerous than driving. My comment was slightly off topic in that respect... I was offering a possible reason for why you knew the people who died at the DZ and not on the road. This point is unrelated to "which actvity is more dangerous?". Even if you saw 500 deaths on the road a month you'd still be unlikely to know many of them, since on the road we are generally encased in a metal box surrounded by strangers in metal boxes. Even if only 1 person at the DZ died every 5 years, you'd still have a pretty good chance of knowing him if it was a small local DZ you worked at. I'm sorry if my point got misinterpreted... as I said I got slightly off-topic, and my post in no way was trying to even compare the relative danger of the two things anymore. I just wanted to comment on what you said about your personal relation to traffic victims vs. skydiving victims.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #48 November 5, 2003 QuoteI don't think it's about who you know. was directed at you. QuoteKid yourself if you will, but what we do is no game. was directed at those people who have a couple of years and a couple of hundred jumps who have not yet seen their peers ripped limb from limb in their pursuit of happiness. Sorry about the misunderstanding. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Geoff 0 #49 November 5, 2003 Quote 1 killed at netheravon a couple of months ago when hit by a swooper I must correct this - nobody was killed in the swooping accident, but 2 people sustained serious injuries. Geoff Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rendezvous 0 #50 November 5, 2003 Driving fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers 22.06 (2001 statistics used) Driving fatalities per 100,000 population 14.86. Skydiving fatalities on average, don't even come close to this. 2,000,000 jumps in any given year with general fatalities falling under 30 per year. If you exclude the fatalities which arise from skydivers killed in a plane going in, the fatality rate is lower. Not quite. The comparison is not parallel. Licensed Drivers and a populations of people cannot be logically compared to number of jumps. 30 fatalities per 2 million jumps needs to be compared to something like # of car accidents per 2 million outings of cars. A slightly more balanced approach would be if you compared fatalities against the average time of exposure to risk. e.g is an average outing in a car lasts 15 min and an average Skydive lasts 1 min, assuming the risk is evenly distributed over the time span ( just to keep things simple ) then time exposure to risk is: 1 * 100,000 min per 100,000 Skydives and 15 min * 100,000 per 100,000 outings of a car.That would make your fatality number of approx 30 for both cases look more like Skydiving 30 per 100,000 min Driving 30 per 1500,000 min Time of exposure to risk vs fatalities or injuries in that period make driving much safer and base jumping probably much more challenging. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
