3 ms·

I don't really think this is about Lodi, or whether customers should know they could die. It's terrible law that makes this not only happen but inevitable. Ob

by w10-1 3y ago

I don't really think this is about Lodi, or whether customers should know they could die. It's terrible law that makes this not only happen but inevitable. Objectively, people are irrational about probabilities. Study after study shows that you can give people probabilities and ask them for decisions, and they will usually be wrong. People are also incapable of understanding the legalese they're signing (that includes privacy policies as well). Without actual understanding the substance or form, in theory there is no actual agreement, and thus no contract waiver of liability. (No theory of private ordering is predicated on duping people because that world only produces fraudsters.) So this comes down to burden of proof: courts assume that if you're legally competent, you can sign away anything. There are very limited situations with strong evidentiary requirements for getting out of it. There's nothing socially beneficial about this assumption. It just makes contract law easier to administer. In terms of regulation, there's no clear mandate for NTSB, the FAA, the county or the state. Indeed, the incentive is to ignore it: why spend a ton now to maybe save some indefinite person in the future? Only the professional organizations - the medical lobby, the parachutist whatever - want to do (only) what's needed to keep business going, but that's not enough, and it's a strong incentive to hide problems. Add to that lack of any personal honor (of being a responsible pilot or trainer or practitioner) in fields undertaking as any job in a backwards economy. So: no regulation, no law, no private standards or personal honor will prevent excited customers from making this mistake, and some business person will engage in enough denial to make money off them. At a minimum, neither waivers nor limited liability should not be available for gross negligence as a matter of law, and any form contract should be construed against the writer. Making this consistent and clear across all jurisdictions would root out most abuse without affecting responsible businesses.

yieldcrv 3y ago
> Objectively, people are irrational about probabilities. Study after study shows that you can give people probabilities and ask them for decisions, and they will usually be wrong. For me its not about the probabilities its about the mitigations and ability to make an informed decision On a consumer protection front, this activity lacks both There’s no “look both ways before crossing the street”, its “sign this waiver before crossing the street, only 10 people actually died so I don’t know why you’re still on this topic”
User23 3y ago
> Study after study shows that you can give people probabilities and ask them for decisions, and they will usually be wrong. This is somewhat true, but often the effect disappears when the scenario is described clearly. For example most setups for the conjunction fallacy are written in such a way that their ordinary interpretation is exclusive, but are claimed to be inclusive by the researcher. This is much like replying to an “x or y” question with “yes.” For example: Which is more probable? Linda is a bank teller. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. An ordinary person will read the first as: Linda is a bank teller and is not active in the feminist movement. Because the first option is analyzed in the context of the second and ordinarily disjunction in English is exclusive where it isn’t explicitly inclusive.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  This kind of reasoning is such a plague on the internet where if you argue (e.g.) one person was wrong, that implies the other person was right.
storyinmemo 3y ago
Local pilot knowledge: Lodi is extra shitty.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  It seems like so often the participants in an activity know where the problems are. Which suggests that surveying experienced participants and looking into whatever gets the most votes as hazardous.
lazide 3y ago
There is a huge honking element missing from this analysis though. The definition of ‘good enough’. Skydiving fatalities aren’t even in the top 100 causes of death in the US, and statistically if you drive any significant distance to the DZ you’re more likely to die on the drive there. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/] Unless the DZ is super shitty anyway. Even Lodi is way safer than recreational drugs though, and good luck stopping THOSE. So I’d argue the relevant regulatory authorities are doing at least as much as they ‘should’ except for perhaps Lodi which is a public safety hazard.
talldatethrow 3y ago
With what I'm hearing about plane maintenance, dei pilots, and problems at air traffic control, I honestly think I would ride my motorcycle from SF to LA these days. That's how irrational people can be. I once rode 22k miles in a year in the Berkeley and Central valley area. Technically that has the risk profile of doing 700k miles in a car. Not even one close call that year. Amazing what not being on your phone can do for you.

by w10-1 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago

> Objectively, people are irrational about probabilities. Study after study shows that you can give people probabilities and ask them for decisions, and they will usually be wrong. For me its not about the probabilities its about the mitigations and ability to make an informed decision On a consumer protection front, this activity lacks both There’s no “look both ways before crossing the street”, its “sign this waiver before crossing the street, only 10 people actually died so I don’t know why you’re still on this topic”

User23 3y ago

> Study after study shows that you can give people probabilities and ask them for decisions, and they will usually be wrong. This is somewhat true, but often the effect disappears when the scenario is described clearly. For example most setups for the conjunction fallacy are written in such a way that their ordinary interpretation is exclusive, but are claimed to be inclusive by the researcher. This is much like replying to an “x or y” question with “yes.” For example: Which is more probable? Linda is a bank teller. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. An ordinary person will read the first as: Linda is a bank teller and is not active in the feminist movement. Because the first option is analyzed in the context of the second and ordinarily disjunction in English is exclusive where it isn’t explicitly inclusive.

lamontcg 3y ago
This kind of reasoning is such a plague on the internet where if you argue (e.g.) one person was wrong, that implies the other person was right.

storyinmemo 3y ago

Local pilot knowledge: Lodi is extra shitty.

LorenPechtel 3y ago
It seems like so often the participants in an activity know where the problems are. Which suggests that surveying experienced participants and looking into whatever gets the most votes as hazardous.

lazide 3y ago

There is a huge honking element missing from this analysis though. The definition of ‘good enough’. Skydiving fatalities aren’t even in the top 100 causes of death in the US, and statistically if you drive any significant distance to the DZ you’re more likely to die on the drive there. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9859333/] Unless the DZ is super shitty anyway. Even Lodi is way safer than recreational drugs though, and good luck stopping THOSE. So I’d argue the relevant regulatory authorities are doing at least as much as they ‘should’ except for perhaps Lodi which is a public safety hazard.

talldatethrow 3y ago

With what I'm hearing about plane maintenance, dei pilots, and problems at air traffic control, I honestly think I would ride my motorcycle from SF to LA these days. That's how irrational people can be. I once rode 22k miles in a year in the Berkeley and Central valley area. Technically that has the risk profile of doing 700k miles in a car. Not even one close call that year. Amazing what not being on your phone can do for you.