4 ms·
Bill Booth's rule #2: "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant".
by zedr 6y ago
Bill Booth's rule #2: "The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant".
- dredmorbius 6y agoKnown as "moral hazard" in the insurance field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
- SilasX 6y agoMore like risk compensation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
- dredmorbius 6y agoThat too. There's plenty of conceptual overlap.
- Fricken 6y agoI've asked myself the question, in other sports: Should all this equipment really be thought of as safety gear? Because it encourages me to take risks I wouldn't otherwise take. Really it's danger gear.
- Bancakes 6y agoPolice officers don't take their body armor into consideration when deciding on use of lethal force in self-defense. Even though IIIA kevlar can stop multiple .44 magnums.
- vanattab 6y agoJust because a vest can prevent death does not mean it does not incapacitate the officer(preventing his further response) or doing serious harm.
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoYou just need to look at Formula One to find a counter example to that. 15 deaths in the fifties, 13 in the sixties but only 3 in the last decade and that is with more races and higher speeds.
- nameless912 6y agoI'm working on my pilot's license and think about this all the time. My instructor is insistent that I learn all my flying fundamentals in a 1940s-era Aeronca Champion (stick and rudder, no flaps, no electronic instruments) on the theory that it's much better to learn the fundamentals with the least help possible so that when we add complexity with things like an artificial horizon, VSI, and eventually an EFIS and autopilot, I won't have to depend on those tools to fly. On the one hand, my flying now is certainly less safe than if I was learning with all those modern safety advancements, but on the other hand I'm learning how to fly purely with an airspeed indicator, an altimeter, a tach, and my own eyes. It's a little scarier, but if god forbid I ever had an electrical system die on me mid flight I can still fall back on my basics. Ultimately, safety systems paradoxically make you more likely to make bad choices if you don't understand what they do. Autopilot doesn't make you a safer pilot, it allows you to reduce some of the load while you're flying by reducing the amount of fine motor skill you need to engage. A GPS doesn't make you a safer pilot, it allows you to reduce some of the load by not having to fiddle with VORs or rely on ground references for navigation as much. But you have to be ready for either of those systems to fail and still finish your flight safely. I feel much more confident that I could do that now than friends of mine who learned on fancy brand new aircraft with glass cockpits.
- simonblack 6y agoI learned to fly long before GPS was a twinkle in anybody's eye. As such I was taught map-reading. And even in places like the 'featureless' Australian outback, it's surprising how detailed modern maps are, and how easy it is to follow them. But it's so much easier to plug in the co-ordinates or name of your destination into the good old GPS, that I fear 99.9% of pilots do their navigation that way. But what happens if your GPS malfunctions somewhere along the way? Can you get to your destination by map and wristwatch?
- nameless912 6y agoExactly. It's wild how accurate just plain ol' pilotage and wayfinding can be if you learn how to do it. Of course, the learning part is the problem :)