Rowing accident statistics - England & Wales
Carl Douglas
given in the 1997 edition of Transport Statistics Great Britain.
The average rates for ‘Killed and Seriously Injured’ per billion
passenger kilometres during 1986-95 were:
Air 0.2
Rail 3.3
Water 47
Bus or coach 16
Car 50
Van 29
Two wheeled motor vehicle 1786
Pedal cycle 896
Pedestrian 667
"On the basis of the last ten years, the risk of being killed or
seriously injured when travelling by car is fifteen times greater
than travelling by rail. On the basis of the most recent period,
this has increased to twenty times greater."
(I copied the above from
http://www.amacro.freeserve.co.uk/rail-safety.htm)
How might this relate to UK rowing accident statistics?
Of course, the ARA has a policy of never revealing information on rowing
accidents, so we have no such statistics. Does that mean we don't have
rowing accidents in the UK, or even in the ARA's England & Wales
territory? Certainly not.
Among English rowers alone I know personally of at least 5 rowing
accident fatalities in the last 43 years. I understand that there have
been a number of others. Plus rather a lot of 'serious' accidents,
including the partial disembowelling of an international rower on the
Tideway. Of course, according to the ARA none of these ever happened!
Anyway, let's be really conservative shall we? I'm going to guess that
just 1 rower was either ‘Killed and Seriously Injured’ per year over
the last 40 years - & I think that estimate will be on the low side.
In England & Wales we have ~18,500 registered rowers. Let's be very
generous & assume that every registered rower rows for 15km/day, 6
days/week, 48 weeks/year?
That gives us 79.9 million rower miles/year. At a rate of one such
accident per year that converts to a rate of 79,900 ‘Killed and
Seriously Injured’ per billion rower kilometres.
Now refer back to the table at the beginning of this posting, & you will
find that that projected accident rate makes rowing, per rower km, to be
1600 x more dangerous than being a car occupant, 120 x worse than being
a pedestrian, 89 x worse than cycling &, even, 45 x worse than
motorcycling.
That puts the safety of rowing into sharp perspective. Somewhat to my
own surprise, it seems that rowing is far the most dangerous thing most
of us do - per km anyway.
Society is significantly concerned to reduce 'unacceptable carnage' on
the roads. To prevent &/or mitigate road accidents society spends a lot
of money & effort - & we willingly forego some personal liberties. Cars
are, increasingly, sold on safety arguments. Concern is kept active by
publicity, & by our rare, disturbing experiences of passing other
people's street & motorway accidents. And some of us even worry over
the supposed dangers of rail & air travel (24,000 & 400,000 times safer
per km, respectively, than rowing).
So shouldn't we who row in the UK be keener to introduce & enforce
simple, non-impeding & cheap rowing safety measures - such as:
1. Guaranteed shell buoyancy (properly defined)
2. Properly effective bow protection
3. The effective safeguarding of Thames sluices
??
To break down ARA obstruction & thus to get the first of these
objectives implemented during 2003 would be a fine New Year's
resolution.
Cheers -
Carl
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
David Biddulph
news:u81NtjEhY0E+Ewn$@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
While I would agree wholeheatedly that we all ought to do what we can to
make the sport safer, I'm a little confused by your arithmetic.
Taking your 79.9 million rower km (not miles?) a year, and your 1 a year
killed or seriously injured, wouldn't this be 12.5 per billion rower km, not
79900? [I think you'll find that they are taking a billion as a thousand
million, not the older UK billion of a million million.] Your comparisons
below are therefore somewhat adrift.
For what it's worth, the most recent issue of "Transport Statistics Great
Britain", telling a similar story to your 1997 issue, is available at
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/.
Wishing you, and all readers, a happy (AND SAFE) New Year.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/david_biddulph/
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
simonk
"David Biddulph" <da...@biddulph.org.uk> wrote in message
news:auvkrm$kir$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Additionally, a hefty pinch of salt is needed when comparing modes of
transport which cover wildly different distances. Air, and to a lesser
extent rail, car, and PTW journeys are all considerably longer than rowing
outings. It's not at all surprising that rowing seems x times more
dangerous per passenger-km than air travel when you consider the number of
rowing outings you'd need to get from LHR to JFK ...
--
simonk
Edd Edmondson
> Additionally, a hefty pinch of salt is needed when comparing modes of
> transport which cover wildly different distances. Air, and to a lesser
> extent rail, car, and PTW journeys are all considerably longer than rowing
> outings. It's not at all surprising that rowing seems x times more
> dangerous per passenger-km than air travel when you consider the number of
> rowing outings you'd need to get from LHR to JFK ...
Exactly the point I was going to make, but using the example of the Space
Shuttle. It's apparently the safest form of transport per km (or pretty
close), but it's by far the most dangerous per trip.
--
Edd
Carl Douglas
>
>While I would agree wholeheatedly that we all ought to do what we can to
>make the sport safer, I'm a little confused by your arithmetic.
>Taking your 79.9 million rower km (not miles?) a year, and your 1 a year
>killed or seriously injured, wouldn't this be 12.5 per billion rower km, not
>79900? [I think you'll find that they are taking a billion as a thousand
>million, not the older UK billion of a million million.] Your comparisons
>below are therefore somewhat adrift.
>
>For what it's worth, the most recent issue of "Transport Statistics Great
>Britain", telling a similar story to your 1997 issue, is available at
>http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/.
>
>Wishing you, and all readers, a happy (AND SAFE) New Year.
Yes! Many thanks David - my very stoopid mistake! I greatly welcome
your prompt correction & reflect your good wishes.
I was rather taken aback, & perturbed by its magnitude, when I came up
with that incorrect figure, but the brain refused to spot the silly
mistake. Fewer glasses of wine last night might have possibly have
improved the maths, so might I be allowed to re-start the year please,
Sir?
By that arithmetically corrected, but still very approximate (& IMO
rather conservative), estimate of 12.5 killed & seriously injured per
billion rower miles, it would seem that our sport is intermediate in
risk between rail & car travel. That is interesting - & a great relief
all round.
But since danger has no necessary part in the sport, & since the causes
of mishap in rowing are relatively simple & few, it remains entirely
proper to demand that our sport give prompt & effective attention to
those risks & to their simple remedies. Too many crews end up needing
rescue & there are too many damned narrow escapes (I'm reminded of the
Durham University sluice accident at Hambleden, almost 2 years ago).
Were proper & complete statistics available - something the ARA is
presently determined to deny us - we would not, as now, be having to
make stabs in the dark (& trip, as I did) & would for the first time
have a proper handle on the risks & their frequency.
Thus I re-iterate my earlier motion:
>>
>> So shouldn't we who row in the UK be keener to introduce & enforce
>> simple, non-impeding & cheap rowing safety measures - such as:
>> 1. Guaranteed shell buoyancy (properly defined)
>> 2. Properly effective bow protection
>> 3. The effective safeguarding of Thames sluices
>> ??
>>
>> To break down ARA obstruction & thus to get the first of these
>> objectives implemented during 2003 would be a fine New Year's
>> resolution.
>>
Cheers -
Carl
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Ewoud Dronkert
> By that arithmetically corrected, but still very approximate (& IMO
> rather conservative), estimate of 12.5 killed & seriously injured per
> billion rower miles, it would seem that our sport is intermediate in
> risk between rail & car travel. That is interesting - & a great relief
> all round.
Casualties per time spent on it seems a more meaningful figure to me. So
divide by average speed, sort of. I guess that makes rowing rather more
safe than rail or car travel.
But foggetaboudit, this is splitting hairs I fear.
Mike Sullivan
Carl Douglas wrote:
I don't follow the math, and got the miles/km confused here. I figured
a more conservative estimate for mileage rowers do, and come up with:
assume each rower 60k per week X 40 weeks X 18500
assume 1 fatality
1 fatality per 44.4 million km.
That comes to 22.5 fatalities per billion km (1000/44.4 = 22.5)
per km, rowing is more dangerous than cars. What is extremely misleading,
however, is measuring the mileage, instead of the time. I doubt
the statistics the rail website came up with for pedestrian and cycling
fatalities. I'd want to see it measured per time spent, rather than
km covered.
It doesn't pass a reasonableness test for me. I would ask the following
question,
how many rowers in britain are killed each year in auto accidents? I would
bet the stats are pretty close in UK, but I bet considerably more road
fatalities
in the USA.
I looked at
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/facts/accident/person/person98.htm
I saw 1.5 pedestrian fatalities per 100000 population
I saw 7.5 auto fatalities per 100000 population (one of lowest of countries,
congrats, UK!)
I translate our assumptions into 5.5 fatalities per 100000 people who row
Even this stat is very misleading, since the populations used in that study
were for all
people, not just people who drive in cars, and I assumed all 100000 people
rowing.
I think the most meaningful statistic would be fatalities per million
hours. We simply
can't compare mileage in any meaningful way unless we are comparing like
speeds
and surfaces.
Airlines like the mileage, though.
I don't disagree with your conclusions, by the way. I've also asked USRA
if they have accident fatality
statistics and they do not. I've not asked FISA.
Mike
Henning Lippke
> I was rather taken aback, & perturbed by its magnitude, when I came up
> with that incorrect figure, but the brain refused to spot the silly
> mistake. Fewer glasses of wine last night might have possibly have
> improved the maths,
But still full of 'estimate' and 'statistics'. Numbers tell you everything
you want if you only tantalise (?) them long enough. So please be very
careful and don't throw around numbers that others may use to 'prove' things
we don't like to see. Or spend to much time hyping around with it ;-)
'wish you some more happy years.
-HL
Adrian Boliston
> "The following passenger casualty rates by transport mode are
> given in the 1997 edition of Transport Statistics Great Britain.
> The average rates for 'Killed and Seriously Injured' per billion
> passenger kilometres during 1986-95 were:
> Air 0.2
> Rail 3.3
> Water 47
> Bus or coach 16
> Car 50
> Van 29
> Two wheeled motor vehicle 1786
> Pedal cycle 896
> Pedestrian 667
I guess that rowing is primarily a sport rather than a normal means of
transport, so you would need to compare it with other sports like skiing etc
to get a true picture of how risky it is.
Carl Douglas
>
<Snipped my dodgy maths!>
>
>I don't follow the math, and got the miles/km confused here.
My maths was screwy, but I'm not sure where you get the miles from,
Mike? Anyway, Happy New Year to you!
> I figured
>a more conservative estimate for mileage rowers do, and come up with:
>
>assume each rower 60k per week X 40 weeks X 18500
>
>assume 1 fatality
I think your 'mileage' (in km) is more realistic than mine was - but in
the normal way I hate to overstate a case so I had aimed deliberately
high.
NB: the original stats were for 'killed & seriously injured', not for
killed only (what a gruesome topic for New Year!).
>
>1 fatality per 44.4 million km.
>
>That comes to 22.5 fatalities per billion km (1000/44.4 = 22.5)
>
>per km, rowing is more dangerous than cars.
OK, I'll go with that.
However, I don't buy Adrian's suggestion that we should compare rowing
with alpine ski sports. Nor do I see the relevance of comparing on a
per-trip basis, as suggested by Edd & Simon - airline staff don't find
insurance too hard to get, even if they fly every day, while shuttle
flight is accepted as a high-risk activity by its participants. BTW,
the one shuttle disaster had much to do with political pressures to
perform over-riding the professional engineering safety concerns which
had arisen due to statistical data on seal failures at different
temperatures.
Rowing is an intrinsically safe sport in which risk is no part of the
fun. Downhill skiing, OTOH, is an extreme sport with notoriously high
levels of risk for high-speed dare-devil professionals, ill-advised
off-piste skiers, ill-tutored rank novices, average & unfit occasional
skiers, plus the hazards of lifts, weather, avalanches, altitude, cold,
drink, trees, etc. I even know, personally, more who have seriously
injured themselves in dry-ski practice at home than I know rowers
equally injured in our sport. Langlauf might be a fairer comparison to
rowing?
> What is extremely misleading,
>however, is measuring the mileage, instead of the time. I doubt
>the statistics the rail website came up with for pedestrian and cycling
>fatalities. I'd want to see it measured per time spent, rather than
>km covered.
>
>It doesn't pass a reasonableness test for me. I would ask the following
>question,
>how many rowers in britain are killed each year in auto accidents? I would
>
>bet the stats are pretty close in UK, but I bet considerably more road
>fatalities
>in the USA.
>
>I looked at
>http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/facts/accident/person/person98.htm
>
>I saw 1.5 pedestrian fatalities per 100000 population
>I saw 7.5 auto fatalities per 100000 population (one of lowest of countries,
>congrats, UK!)
>
>I translate our assumptions into 5.5 fatalities per 100000 people who row
>
>Even this stat is very misleading, since the populations used in that study
>were for all
>people, not just people who drive in cars, and I assumed all 100000 people
>rowing.
>
>I think the most meaningful statistic would be fatalities per million
>hours.
But no-one lives for 1 million hours, so on that basis a simpleton would
say the stats showed 150% fatalities per million hours, even for the
most protected of non-rowers. Maybe that wouldn't be the way to go?
;-)
> We simply
>can't compare mileage in any meaningful way unless we are comparing like
>speeds
>and surfaces.
I completely agree we should question the relevance of statistical
arguments. There are always those with more flexible principles who
will seek to twist figures to their own ends - as I think Henning
implies. Evidence may mislead. And there are always those who can never
see a statistic without advancing the facile 'lies, damned lies &
statistics' put-down - because that smart-arse answer saves them from
having to engage their brains.
But my aim was to get a serious & honest discussion going, & I'm very
pleased to see we have.
I chose to view rowing as a means of travel in order to compare its risk
levels with what appear to be quite valid travel figures. These may
have come at second hand from a rail-related site, but they are Govt
stats &, as David pointed out, they are supported by more recent Govt
figures. And I have always found data generated by public servants to
be pretty reliable. Sports, by contrast, are notoriously coy about
measuring & revealing their attendant risks.
>
>Airlines like the mileage, though.
Of course. And I think they are quite right to do so. After all,
planes are never going to be meaningfully compared with horse travel,
walking or swimming, but with ships & long-haul rail. And since they
provide the swiftest form of travel it is, to me anyway, quite
impressive that they have such low death rates per unit distance. I
would also note that this very safe form of transport has probably the
best & most rigorous accident & incident reporting system of all - all
open to public scrutiny.
Remember, too, that undergoing surgery, for example, carries a much
higher risk than crossing the road. That doesn't mean no-one should
undergo essential surgery. (Being flippant only to underline a serious
point, we must remember that breathing is, in the end, 100% fatal)
But if we do compare rowing with car travel, f'rinstance, then I think
the parallels in time & distance are surprisingly close. A high
proportion of UK car journeys are shorter than 15km, & in UK cities
average car speeds are often rather similar to (& sometimes slower than)
those of rowing shells.
Then consider that the fatality rate for motor vehicles is strongly
affected by their speed - with almost all car occupant deaths occurring
in vehicles travelling faster that 30mph/48kph. Were all motor vehicles
restricted to the rower's typical 18kph, there would be almost no deaths
among their occupants - & vastly fewer deaths among cyclists & walkers.
Thus the motor industry manages to protect grossly unfit car occupants,
such that despite often travelling at around 70mph/112kph, they have
perhaps a lower overall risk per km than us rowers.
Just one reason why we really should worry - as I know you do, Mike -
over the present disregard for effective safety design & reporting in
our sport.
>
>I don't disagree with your conclusions, by the way. I've also asked USRA
>if they have accident fatality
>statistics and they do not.
Many thanks for your effort & trouble in extracting that confirmation,
Mike. Isn't it odd, though. Collecting & collating accident stats is
not a difficult thing to do, it would be a valuable service to the
association's members, would advance design & could be used to good
effect to improve the reputation of the sport & promote it more widely.
> I've not asked FISA.
I believe you will find that although FISA takes it upon itself to rule
on safety matters, as the mood takes it, it does so always in a
statistical vacuum.
Many thanks for your most thoughtful & thought-provoking contribution,
Mike
Edd Edmondson
<snip>
> OK, I'll go with that.
> However, I don't buy Adrian's suggestion that we should compare rowing
> with alpine ski sports. Nor do I see the relevance of comparing on a
> per-trip basis, as suggested by Edd & Simon - airline staff don't find
> insurance too hard to get, even if they fly every day, while shuttle
> flight is accepted as a high-risk activity by its participants. BTW,
> the one shuttle disaster had much to do with political pressures to
> perform over-riding the professional engineering safety concerns which
> had arisen due to statistical data on seal failures at different
> temperatures.
I wasn't suggesting a per trip statistic was necessarily better - I was
merely pointing out that a per km one wasn't necessarily a wise choice,
and that choosing two different, but what are at first glance perfectly
reasonable statistics can give very different results. When you're
comparing pedestrians and aeroplanes in your first posting this is a point
that's crying out to be made.
Going increasingly off topic I'm also quite aware of why the Challenger
disaster happened, and whilst you'd never catch me sitting on top of a
rocket I wouldn't dream of stopping astronauts going into space.
Plus of course we all know there's a vast number of other things to
consider like the risk acceptable to participants and the cost of adding
safety measures.
--
Edd
Simon Hay
> I guess that rowing is primarily a sport rather than a normal means of
> transport, so you would need to compare it with other sports like skiing etc
> to get a true picture of how risky it is.
Cycling is on the list, but treated as a means of transport, rather than
a sport (it is legitimately both, though not, hopefully, at the same
time!) I wonder how different the figures would be if all commuter bike
rides etc. were discounted and only those done for the sheer pleasure of
cycling included?
My guess would be significantly lower.
Simon
Mike Sullivan
Carl Douglas wrote:
> Mike Sullivan <su...@forsythe.stanford.edu> writes
> >
>
snip
>
>
> Rowing is an intrinsically safe sport in which risk is no part of the
> fun. Downhill skiing, OTOH, is an extreme sport with notoriously high
> levels of risk for high-speed dare-devil professionals, ill-advised
> off-piste skiers, ill-tutored rank novices, average & unfit occasional
> skiers, plus the hazards of lifts, weather, avalanches, altitude, cold,
> drink, trees, etc. I even know, personally, more who have seriously
> injured themselves in dry-ski practice at home than I know rowers
> equally injured in our sport. Langlauf might be a fairer comparison to
> rowing?
We can't call rowing 'intrinsically safe' while at the same
time quoting accident statistics that show mortality rates that
are higher than activities that are not considered intrinsically safe.
snip
>
> >
> >I think the most meaningful statistic would be fatalities per million
> >hours.
>
> But no-one lives for 1 million hours, so on that basis a simpleton would
> say the stats showed 150% fatalities per million hours, even for the
> most protected of non-rowers. Maybe that wouldn't be the way to go?
> ;-)
well, someone could point out to that simpleton that nobody
drives(or rows) a billion km either.
I have a definite agenda in my approach here. Soon, this spring, likely
I'll be approaching our local sherriff's department with an outline of our
safety plan for the new club I established here in Clear Lake.
My goal is to let them know what to expect from the club membership as
far as their own risk assessments, and to prevent that agency from
requiring life jackets for all rowers.
Ironically, by wearing pfds all the time, I could completely avoid headaches
with our local authorities, while at the same time not put any effort into
proper safety instruction.
I have to demonstrate that rowing is an inttrinsically safe activity, and at
the same time demonstrate the precautions we will take for the various
conditions.
This summer every sculler had to fall out of his/her boat and recover it to
safety,
as well as demonstrate to me their level of competency in the water.
We are completely shut down over this winter, even though there are many
superb rowing days, and some of the members who would be quite safe, but
I haven't been organized enough to get the winter program set up, nor did I
want to be worried about it (I've got enough to do just in development and
getting the boathouse up).
Therefore, I'm very sensitive about how stats get used because they can
be so deceptive.
If we took all of the rowing fatalities and applied PDFs, how many people do
you think would have survived? I bet a good percentage would have (without
any knowledge than a guess, i'm afraid).
This is where the use of those statistics have to be self-consistent. We can't
both
show the safety and the risk with the same numbers.
Mike
Adrian Boliston
news:3E144E82...@haywired.org...
> Cycling is on the list, but treated as a means of transport, rather than
> a sport (it is legitimately both, though not, hopefully, at the same
> time!)
I guess you get the occasional person who lives next to a canal or river,
and a workplace on the same waterway who has the ability to commute to work
by rowing, but I suspect this is quite rare!
Simon Hay
> I guess you get the occasional person who lives next to a canal or river,
> and a workplace on the same waterway who has the ability to commute to work
> by rowing, but I suspect this is quite rare!
Some years ago a couple of St Paul's rowers used to scull in to school,
Richmond to Hammersmith, every day... Impressive stuff!
Simon
Henning Lippke
FISA has recently been asked, by the Blockleys, on both incident reporting
and floating shells. I'm sure there's no answer yet.
-HL
Carl Douglas
>
>Carl Douglas wrote:
>
<Snippage>
>>
>> Rowing is an intrinsically safe sport in which risk is no part of the
>> fun. Downhill skiing, OTOH, is an extreme sport with notoriously high
>> levels of risk for high-speed dare-devil professionals, ill-advised
>> off-piste skiers, ill-tutored rank novices, average & unfit occasional
>> skiers, plus the hazards of lifts, weather, avalanches, altitude, cold,
>> drink, trees, etc. I even know, personally, more who have seriously
>> injured themselves in dry-ski practice at home than I know rowers
>> equally injured in our sport. Langlauf might be a fairer comparison to
>> rowing?
>
>We can't call rowing 'intrinsically safe' while at the same
>time quoting accident statistics that show mortality rates that
>are higher than activities that are not considered intrinsically safe.
>
Something unpredictable or beyond reasonable control can always strike.
But we do know that, when sensibly supervised, undertaken by persons
trained under a certain regime, performed with equipment which meets
certain standards, etc., rowing is very much at the safe end of the risk
scale of all sports.
>
>>
>> >
>> >I think the most meaningful statistic would be fatalities per million
>> >hours.
>>
>> But no-one lives for 1 million hours, so on that basis a simpleton would
>> say the stats showed 150% fatalities per million hours, even for the
>> most protected of non-rowers. Maybe that wouldn't be the way to go?
>> ;-)
>
>well, someone could point out to that simpleton that nobody
>drives(or rows) a billion km either.
>
It was a leg pull, you know! But such play helps us to feel our way to
what would & would not be meaningful.
What I think we're scratching around for, & probably unable to find, is
the perfect comparative basis, & the statistics to go with it? We
could:
1. Compare mean lifetime outcomes for all rowers versus the entire
population in terms of health, personal satisfaction, life-span,
premature fatalities, etc. We both know rowing would be shown to be of
positive benefit - but you'd have a job to meaningfully balance all
those parameters.
2. Or compare fatal & serious injuries per hour, or per typical week, or
per typical sporting career, of the rowing population versus other
sports.
3. Or create any number of fairly arbitrary bases for comparison, &
argue about the lot of them.
But, as this thread has already shown, once you start comparing apples
with oranges all hell of criticism breaks loose - probably quite
rightly.
Items 1 & 2 both have merit, but evade the original point - that in our
rather low-risk sport there are some easily removed & utterly
unnecessary hazards, & a complete failure of systematic accident
reporting, recording & dissemination. So our NGBs have to get their
acts together.
I'd prefer that we not criticise other sports to advance rowing. All
sports are good for some, even the really risky ones, or they wouldn't
be supported - even though some of us may think that certain sports
contravene the 'mens sana in corpore sano' standard favoured by the
Romans (themselves rather partial, as spectators, to deadly sports).
>>
<Snip>
>
>I have a definite agenda in my approach here. Soon, this spring, likely
>I'll be approaching our local sherriff's department with an outline of our
>safety plan for the new club I established here in Clear Lake.
>My goal is to let them know what to expect from the club membership as
>far as their own risk assessments, and to prevent that agency from
>requiring life jackets for all rowers.
I do very much take that point, Mike, & have tried to respond to it in
what I wrote above. But you may have to be prepared to use different
comparative bases according to circumstances. I hope I can persuade you
that that ain't cheating.
I suspect that the Sheriff will first be wanting assurance that your
charges are, in a typical rowing environment (i.e. less efficiently
managed than the way you run things) at no greater danger at the club &
on the water than they would be when going for a drive in the car for
the same duration. I think you already, as a result of these
discussions, have at least some of the information you'd require to
start making that case, don't you? Especially when you can say that here
in the UK, that den of iniquity & sea of storms, we never see a PFD on
or with a rower (& often not even on coxes).
I think you could further develop that theme if you can lay hands on US
statistics for your car-occupant serious injuries & deaths, which we all
think exceed those for the UK. Especially if you can also get a subset
of data to cover the same age-range as you will have rowing.
The there is a completely different set of data which one would dearly
wish were available - what are the daily death rate from all causes, &
also delinquency/criminality rate, of the generality of young US
citizens in your state, & what is the death rate & criminality rate
among young rowers of similar age? I am entirely sure that both deaths
& criminality are far lower among young, active rowers than among the
more idle average of the population. Rowers' health is far better,
drugs & smoking are virtually unknown (indeed incompatible with good
rowing), self-discipline & self-esteem are fostered & developed,
team-work encouraged, abusive behaviour discouraged, & the sport asks so
much of them & gives so much back that they mostly wouldn't want to lose
it. OK, you can't produce the hard data, but I'm pretty sure the
Sheriff will understand that line of thought - you'd be saving his
department a bit of trouble & doing so in a way which reduces the risks
to those kids.
>
>Ironically, by wearing pfds all the time, I could completely avoid headaches
>with our local authorities, while at the same time not put any effort into
>proper safety instruction.
Then you can say that, although most rowers do their rowing in boats
which can suddenly sink, in your establishment all boats will be
unsinkable. So they have to capsize to be at risk. But capsize is the
safe (even fun) way to enter the water (activates mammalian diving
reflex). And you've taught all your scullers how to get back into their
boats? And they'll always have buddies when young? And maybe the
younger or less experienced *will* wear PFDs? (In UK marathon kayak all
those below a certain status/age have to wear PFDs, so there's a handy
comparator).
>
>I have to demonstrate that rowing is an inttrinsically safe activity, and at
>the same time demonstrate the precautions we will take for the various
>conditions.
>This summer every sculler had to fall out of his/her boat and recover it to
>safety,
>as well as demonstrate to me their level of competency in the water.
>
>We are completely shut down over this winter, even though there are many
>superb rowing days, and some of the members who would be quite safe, but
>I haven't been organized enough to get the winter program set up, nor did I
>want to be worried about it (I've got enough to do just in development and
>getting the boathouse up).
>
>Therefore, I'm very sensitive about how stats get used because they can
>be so deceptive.
>
>If we took all of the rowing fatalities and applied PDFs, how many people do
>you think would have survived? I bet a good percentage would have (without
>any knowledge than a guess, i'm afraid).
Of the now 6 (it was 5) English deaths I can recall, half would still
have died (because they went through Thames sluices) but the others
might well have survived. But had PFDs been used I rather suspect that
more would have died in the sluices. The survivors lived only because
they could swim fast enough to reach some form of safety before being
sucked through the sluices. Nor would PFDs help many of those who get
skewered in collisions, unless full torso-sized & armoured. In short, a
buoyancy aid would help some & might hinder others, whereas a boat which
did not sink would have kept 2 of those English guys alive, & the same
for very many other rowers at other time & in other places. So a PFD
looks to me like a stop-gap, not a proper solution.
>
>This is where the use of those statistics have to be self-consistent. We can't
>both
>show the safety and the risk with the same numbers.
That's where I'd have to disagree with you. You Sheriff must already
know that there are no perfectly safe activities & that everything we do
carries some risk & some reward. Would he/she ban rock climbing or
cycling - for neither of which can you offer anything which will
completely remove the chance of a fatal high-speed impact?
I'd be very happy to discuss this further at any time, privately or on
RSR, if that would help you achieve your objectives. Just a pity the
USRA can't do more.
Jeremy Fagan
landing and taking off, making a more appropriate statistic to be fatalities
per journey. When this statistic is taken, flying is less safe than road or
rail. Similarly, you're most likely to have a car accident within a very
close distance of your home. Not sure of applicability to rowing - I suspect
that the more appropriate statistic for rowing would be distance travelled
or time participated. Although most people who fall in in my experience do
it when they're next to the bank ('I thought you were holding the rigger!')
Jeremy
"Edd Edmondson" <eddedm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:auvohm$g1g$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...