5 ms·

I guess that depends on how you think about risk - if it's about some probability of an unfortunate event, or maximum unavoidable damage in case of that event.

I guess that depends on how you think about risk - if it's about some probability of an unfortunate event, or maximum unavoidable damage in case of that event. A 1/10000 chance of certain death doesn't sound like something I'd like to take.

wazari972 10y ago
> A 1/10000 chance of certain death doesn't sound like something I'd like to take. (maybe I was a little bit off, it's more likely that the risk of failure is 1/1000, so sum is 1/1.000.000) but the point is, it's more risky to drive back home after the weekend than to recreational cave dive, especially with dive fatigue!
- elcapitan 10y ago
  > it's more risky to drive back home after the weekend than to recreational cave dive, especially with dive fatigue! I think that's the same issue with risk assessment and mixing up probability and impact: A problem when driving home is not a 100% certain death sentence, and it is not something you could not mitigate. You can drive slower, try to avoid dangerous streets etc. And even in the event of an accident you have systems that might save you (airbag etc).
- chimprich 10y ago
  You have more risks than just reg failure though. Losing your line, line snapping, floods, rockfall, silt bank collapse, getting physically stuck, just to name a few. Based on the number of cave divers and the number of cave diver deaths over the past few years I would say your odds of dying on a cave dive are far, far higher than driving home. I think if you believe that you are more at risk driving then you haven't assessed the risks accurately. I speak as an experienced caver with several cave diving friends.
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  These kinds of risk calculations are perhaps useful for insurance companies, but for individuals doing a "dangerous" sports there is more to the risk than merely probability. In particular, with something like cave diving and mountain climbing the "bad" outcome is going to be death of the individual or their friends and it will likely be the result of a series of bad decisions under stress (each of which makes the situation more dire) rather than an exceedingly rare multiple systems failure.
grecy 10y ago
> A 1/10000 chance of certain death doesn't sound like something I'd like to take. Your chance of certain death is 1. It's only a question of when.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Some people consider that question fairly important.
beefield 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U... More than one death per 100 million miles gives worse than 1:10 000 odds per 10 000 miles. If you do not want to take 1/10 000 death risks, you would need to limit your lifetime car travels to way less than 10 000 miles.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  As I said below, this is not comparable. 1 death in 100M miles means most likely stupid behavior leading to an accident. That's pretty ok. You can mitigate that risk. Don't drink and drive. Don't drive when tired. Don't drive too fast, avoid fast streets/highways (where most of the accidents happen). This is different from a setting where something you can't influence at all can fail and then kill you. The probability of the traffic accident is conditional pretty much on the individual case. Having said that, I don't own or drive a car ;)
  - Scarblac 10y ago
    > Don't drink and drive. Don't drive when tired. Don't drive too fast, And particularly, don't share roads with any drivers doing any of the above.
  - beefield 10y ago
    Well, I would argue that in most so called extreme sports the mitigatable (is that a word?) risks play relatively much larger role than in traffic. You can't mitigate a drunken driver colliding with you, but it is precisely you who makes the knots in the climbing rope and packs your parachute correctly. And, given so small probabilities, even if you tell yourself that you are mitigating the risk by not drinking&driving, it is virtually impossible for you to know that you do not have some other habit that increases your death probability to the average levels or above. Are your reaction times slower (or faster) than other peoples? Do you hitch a hike always in a car that is properly taken care of? Etc. And if you do not own a car, your lifetime cycling quota in the US cycling environment is less than 2 000 miles[0]. Even less mitigating other peoples' mistakes than in a car. [0] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...
chimprich 10y ago
Do you eat bacon? If so your chances of getting colorectal cancer are likely increased by a fair bit more than 1/10000.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  No, I don't eat bacon.
- junto 10y ago
  Just of of interest of that all cured ham or is there something sorbian about bacon particularly?
scythe 10y ago
His independence assumption is wrong. If one regulator fails, you return to the surface ASAP. That leaves much less time for the second regulator to fail, and a smaller conditional probability.
anro 10y ago
Gear failures is almost never a big part of cave accidents. But lack of training and following established best practices is a big part of cave diving deaths. (Actually cave diving used to have better statistics than regular recreational scuba diving. ) In this case I do think the accident could have been avoided by following the established best practices they all knew.

wazari972 10y ago

> A 1/10000 chance of certain death doesn't sound like something I'd like to take. (maybe I was a little bit off, it's more likely that the risk of failure is 1/1000, so sum is 1/1.000.000) but the point is, it's more risky to drive back home after the weekend than to recreational cave dive, especially with dive fatigue!

elcapitan 10y ago
> it's more risky to drive back home after the weekend than to recreational cave dive, especially with dive fatigue! I think that's the same issue with risk assessment and mixing up probability and impact: A problem when driving home is not a 100% certain death sentence, and it is not something you could not mitigate. You can drive slower, try to avoid dangerous streets etc. And even in the event of an accident you have systems that might save you (airbag etc).
chimprich 10y ago
You have more risks than just reg failure though. Losing your line, line snapping, floods, rockfall, silt bank collapse, getting physically stuck, just to name a few. Based on the number of cave divers and the number of cave diver deaths over the past few years I would say your odds of dying on a cave dive are far, far higher than driving home. I think if you believe that you are more at risk driving then you haven't assessed the risks accurately. I speak as an experienced caver with several cave diving friends.
crispyambulance 10y ago
These kinds of risk calculations are perhaps useful for insurance companies, but for individuals doing a "dangerous" sports there is more to the risk than merely probability. In particular, with something like cave diving and mountain climbing the "bad" outcome is going to be death of the individual or their friends and it will likely be the result of a series of bad decisions under stress (each of which makes the situation more dire) rather than an exceedingly rare multiple systems failure.

grecy 10y ago

> A 1/10000 chance of certain death doesn't sound like something I'd like to take. Your chance of certain death is 1. It's only a question of when.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Some people consider that question fairly important.

beefield 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U... More than one death per 100 million miles gives worse than 1:10 000 odds per 10 000 miles. If you do not want to take 1/10 000 death risks, you would need to limit your lifetime car travels to way less than 10 000 miles.

elcapitan 10y ago
As I said below, this is not comparable. 1 death in 100M miles means most likely stupid behavior leading to an accident. That's pretty ok. You can mitigate that risk. Don't drink and drive. Don't drive when tired. Don't drive too fast, avoid fast streets/highways (where most of the accidents happen). This is different from a setting where something you can't influence at all can fail and then kill you. The probability of the traffic accident is conditional pretty much on the individual case. Having said that, I don't own or drive a car ;)
- Scarblac 10y ago
  > Don't drink and drive. Don't drive when tired. Don't drive too fast, And particularly, don't share roads with any drivers doing any of the above.
- beefield 10y ago
  Well, I would argue that in most so called extreme sports the mitigatable (is that a word?) risks play relatively much larger role than in traffic. You can't mitigate a drunken driver colliding with you, but it is precisely you who makes the knots in the climbing rope and packs your parachute correctly. And, given so small probabilities, even if you tell yourself that you are mitigating the risk by not drinking&driving, it is virtually impossible for you to know that you do not have some other habit that increases your death probability to the average levels or above. Are your reaction times slower (or faster) than other peoples? Do you hitch a hike always in a car that is properly taken care of? Etc. And if you do not own a car, your lifetime cycling quota in the US cycling environment is less than 2 000 miles[0]. Even less mitigating other peoples' mistakes than in a car. [0] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...

chimprich 10y ago

Do you eat bacon? If so your chances of getting colorectal cancer are likely increased by a fair bit more than 1/10000.

elcapitan 10y ago
No, I don't eat bacon.
junto 10y ago
Just of of interest of that all cured ham or is there something sorbian about bacon particularly?

scythe 10y ago

His independence assumption is wrong. If one regulator fails, you return to the surface ASAP. That leaves much less time for the second regulator to fail, and a smaller conditional probability.

anro 10y ago

Gear failures is almost never a big part of cave accidents. But lack of training and following established best practices is a big part of cave diving deaths. (Actually cave diving used to have better statistics than regular recreational scuba diving. ) In this case I do think the accident could have been avoided by following the established best practices they all knew.