> > "Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911"
> - > Wow...and I thought cellfones were a problem in the backcountry......:)
Sad but I guess we should have expected it. A lot of us were worried when the MLU (Mount Hood Locator Unit) was introduced. We were afraid people would use that as an excuse to take on things they would avoid without it. Fortunately that wasn't the case, I suspect because to get one you have to go to a rental shop and that shop is supposed to instruct you that the thing doesn't call SAR and you should be careful anyway. In fact for years it seemed that the people getting in trouble and those using the MLU were completely different groups, we had almost no call to search for people with an MLU.
The PLB seems to have a bigger problem. In fact the first rescue I know of with one involved a guy back east somewhere who was rescued, then went back to retrieve his gear and activated the thing again. They fined him the second time.
hlill...@juno.com wrote: > The PLB seems to have a bigger problem. In fact the first rescue I > know of with one involved a guy back east somewhere who was rescued, > then went back to retrieve his gear and activated the thing again. > They fined him the second time.
I was pondering whether to get a PLB for a planned solo long-distance trip this summer. I've ended up deciding that not having one will probably just influence me to be more careful. (They're also very expensive.)
I think we see the same phenomenon with antilock brakes and airbags. People just drive faster, so you don't get any improvement in safety from having them.
> hlill...@juno.com wrote: >> The PLB seems to have a bigger problem. In fact the first rescue I >> know of with one involved a guy back east somewhere who was rescued, >> then went back to retrieve his gear and activated the thing again. >> They fined him the second time.
> I was pondering whether to get a PLB for a planned solo long-distance > trip this summer. I've ended up deciding that not having one will > probably just influence me to be more careful. (They're also very > expensive.)
> I think we see the same phenomenon with antilock brakes and airbags. > People just drive faster, so you don't get any improvement in safety > from having them.
That is a pretty lame analogy. I have had a PLB for years. Never used it, never leave it at home. A local photographer fell off Twin Falls earlier this month. Even with his PLB it took 22 hours to extract him, but he is alive.
I was pondering whether to get a PLB for a planned solo long-distance trip this summer. I've ended up deciding that not having one will probably just influence me to be more careful. (They're also very expensive.)
I think we see the same phenomenon with antilock brakes and airbags. People just drive faster, so you don't get any improvement in safety from having them.
<crowel...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote: > hlill...@juno.com wrote: > > The PLB seems to have a bigger problem. In fact the first rescue I > > know of with one involved a guy back east somewhere who was rescued, > > then went back to retrieve his gear and activated the thing again. > > They fined him the second time.
> I was pondering whether to get a PLB for a planned solo long-distance > trip this summer. I've ended up deciding that not having one will > probably just influence me to be more careful. (They're also very > expensive.)
> I think we see the same phenomenon with antilock brakes and airbags. > People just drive faster, so you don't get any improvement in safety > from having them.
The technical name for the phenomenon is "risk homeostasis." The concept is somewhat controversial but the idea is that people have a certain level of risk they are comfortable with. If external forces lower their risk they tend to take other risky actions and bring perceived risk back to their natural comfort level. In fact antilock brakes were used in an experiment to demonstrate this. In Europe (Munich?) half the taxis were equipped with ABS systems, half not. Accident rates were the same in both groups.
hlill...@juno.com wrote: > On Oct 28, 4:09 pm, Ben Crowell > <crowel...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote: >> hlill...@juno.com wrote: >>> The PLB seems to have a bigger problem. In fact the first rescue I >>> know of with one involved a guy back east somewhere who was rescued, >>> then went back to retrieve his gear and activated the thing again. >>> They fined him the second time. >> I was pondering whether to get a PLB for a planned solo long-distance >> trip this summer. I've ended up deciding that not having one will >> probably just influence me to be more careful. (They're also very >> expensive.)
>> I think we see the same phenomenon with antilock brakes and airbags. >> People just drive faster, so you don't get any improvement in safety >> from having them.
> The technical name for the phenomenon is "risk homeostasis." The > concept is somewhat controversial but the idea is that people have a > certain level of risk they are comfortable with. If external forces > lower their risk they tend to take other risky actions and bring > perceived risk back to their natural comfort level. In fact antilock > brakes were used in an experiment to demonstrate this. In Europe > (Munich?) half the taxis were equipped with ABS systems, half not. > Accident rates were the same in both groups.
An interesting book on this topic is Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why, by Laurence Gonzales. It's a book on the psychology of why people end up getting killed. Typical case studies involve snowmobiling, white-water kyaking, flying, and backcountry hiking.
One of the interesting insights I took away from the book was that often increased experience leads to a higher risk of death. Once your brain is convinced that it can do something as a matter of habit, it tends to go ahead and do it again. So, e.g., you get people who have kayaked down a certain river 100 times before, guided other people, etc. -- and then when there's a huge storm and the river is full of trees and houses, they go out and get killed on the river, which they're convinced they know how to handle.
<crowel...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote: > > The technical name for the phenomenon is "risk homeostasis." The > > concept is somewhat controversial but the idea is that people have a > > certain level of risk they are comfortable with. If external forces > > lower their risk they tend to take other risky actions and bring > > perceived risk back to their natural comfort level. In fact antilock > > brakes were used in an experiment to demonstrate this. In Europe > > (Munich?) half the taxis were equipped with ABS systems, half not. > > Accident rates were the same in both groups. > An interesting book on this topic is Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, > and Why, by Laurence Gonzales. It's a book on the psychology > of why people end up getting killed. Typical case studies involve > snowmobiling, white-water kyaking, flying, and backcountry hiking.
> One of the interesting insights I took away from the book was that > often increased experience leads to a higher risk of death. Once > your brain is convinced that it can do something as a matter of > habit, it tends to go ahead and do it again. So, e.g., you get people > who have kayaked down a certain river 100 times before, guided > other people, etc. -- and then when there's a huge storm and > the river is full of trees and houses, they go out and get killed > on the river, which they're convinced they know how to handle.
Sounds like a good book, I'll have to find a copy and read it. However I'm not sure that what you've described is actually risk homeostasis, it may be more just plain overconfidence.
There is a guy in Utah (don't remember his name) who did a lot of work on such things as they relate to avalanche danger. His conclusion is that the people most at risk from avalanches are those who have a significant amount of training in avalanche awareness, how to determine if a slope is likely to slide etc. However this high risk group does not include the true experts who really do know how to evaluate a slope. Those with no training whatsoever but who know avalanches can happen are less at risk than those in the middle as far as expertise goes. The experts really know how to do it safely (or not do it if it is not safe). The novices don't know and stay away. Those in between are often overconfident and think it's safe when it is not.
|
