Fatality - Clipper around the world race

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Dockhead, please don't take this as an afront. But in this post you have revealed to me what I have previously seen in your posts about 'road rules' and riding bikes. And frankly, American's seem to be some of the worst drivers for offensive driving (apart from Asia) I would suggest, claim, that in ALL situations, with the exception of a deliberate running into a MC, a motorcylist most certainly can control the risks, even those risks from other road users. These technigues are learned in advanced driving training schools. Accidents occur with both MV drivers and MC riders when their defensive driving skills are not being observed. And if you have never done an advanced driving course, I doubt you will know what i'm talking about.

So you're saying that you are able to avoid all accidents, regardless of what other drivers do?

Seems delusional to me. What if someone turns right in front of you, not having seen you, at a distance less than your best braking distance? Runs into the back of you while you're stopped at a traffic light? Defensive driving is a great thing, done well it really improves the odds, but it does not surround you with a magic shield. And on a motorcycle, your body will be directly involved in the collision, with no structure to absorb any of the impact, no air bags, etc. The result of this is objective -- the death rate (in the U.S.) on motorcycles is 3500% (!) that of cars, yes, 35x higher.

Whether it is unacceptably dangerous or not, everyone has to decide for himself. I don't impose my own conclusion on anyone else. Some people go for it with a full understanding of what they are getting into -- good for them.

Unfortunately many people simply do not understand how risk works. "I've done it 50 times, and nothing bad ever happened; therefore it's entirely safe" is a complete fallacy, but that's how many people think.

Or "While doing x, bad things only happen to idiots [careless people; people who never attended a defensive driving course; etc.]. I'm not an idiot [etc.], therefore, nothing bad will ever happen to me."

Or, as we heard earlier in this thread, "Safety is more important than anything else; so just never take any risks with safety and that's all you have to know."


These are all invalid logical conclusions.


Getting back to the topic -- I think there's been some very good discussion about the risks of the type of activity which got this poor girl killed. What Stumble was saying was that he doesn't see anything wrong with people deciding to take these kind of risks (the word "allowed" was a slip which doesn't detract from his point).

That is entirely relevant to the discussion, and goes to the question -- Is This a Micro or a Macro Problem? That is, is it a question of getting the details right? Like treating amateurs differently from pros and having different procedures? Better training maybe? Or is it a Macro problem -- the whole business is wrong, taking amateurs racing around the world in such latitudes and conditions.

It's a really interesting question, and I agree with Stumble that it's not a Macro problem -- that there's nothing unacceptable about the basic idea of it. In my opinion.

He's arguing against two positions taken in the discussion: One of them is the "absolutist" approach to safety, which is that the only thing which matters is safety, and taking any risks is already wrong. The other is the idea that companies like Robin Knox-Johnston's should not be taking the money of gullible novices to do an activity they are fundamentally not qualified to be doing.

Reasonable men might disagree on these things, but I agree with Stumble here. In my opinion, the actual risks are not out of proportion to what an even slightly reasonable client of RKJ would have fully expected and signed up to. In my opinion, they were doing something pretty damned cool, a pretty incredible adventure, and to get that taking risks which are not really unreasonable considering the kind of experience you're having.

Which is not to say that there might not have been better thought through procedures, which might have saved the girl and others like her.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So you're saying that you are able to avoid all accidents, regardless of what other drivers do?

Seems delusional to me. What if someone turns right in front of you, not having seen you, at a distance less than your best braking distance? Runs into the back of you while you're stopped at a traffic light?

Defensive driving is a great thing, done well it really improves the odds, but it does not surround you with a magic shield. And on a motorcycle, your body will be directly involved in the collision, with no structure to absorb any of the impact, no air bags, etc. The result of this is objective -- the death rate (in the U.S.) on motorcycles is 3500% (!) that of cars, yes, 35x higher.

Whether it is unacceptably dangerous or not, everyone has to decide for himself. I don't impose my own conclusion on anyone else. Some people go for it with a full understanding of what they are getting into -- good for them.

Unfortunately many people simply do not understand how risk works. "I've done it 50 times, and nothing bad ever happened; therefore it's entirely safe" is a complete fallacy, but that's how many people think.

Or "While doing x, bad things only happen to idiots [careless people; people who never attended a defensive driving course; etc.]. I'm not an idiot [etc.], therefore, nothing bad will ever happen to me."

Or, as we heard earlier in this thread, "Safety is more important than anything else; so just never take any risks with safety and that's all you have to know."


These are all invalid logical conclusions.


Getting back to the topic -- I think there's been some very good discussion about the risks of the type of activity which got this poor girl killed. What Stumble was saying was that he doesn't see anything wrong with people deciding to take these kind of risks (the word "allowed" was a slip which doesn't detract from his point).

That is entirely relevant to the discussion, and goes to the question -- Is This a Micro or a Macro Problem? That is, is it a question of getting the details right? Like treating amateurs differently from pros and having different procedures? Better training maybe? Or is it a Macro problem -- the whole business is wrong, taking amateurs racing around the world in such latitudes and conditions.

It's a really interesting question, and I agree with Stumble that it's not a Macro problem -- that there's nothing unacceptable about the basic idea of it. In my opinion.

He's arguing against two positions taken in the discussion: One of them is the "absolutist" approach to safety, which is that the only thing which matters is safety, and taking any risks is already wrong. The other is the idea that companies like Robin Knox-Johnston's should not be taking the money of gullible novices to do an activity they are fundamentally not qualified to be doing.

Reasonable men might disagree on these things, but I agree with Stumble here. In my opinion, the actual risks are not out of proportion to what an even slightly reasonable client of RKJ would have fully expected and signed up to. In my opinion, they were doing something pretty damned cool, a pretty incredible adventure, and to get that taking risks which are not really unreasonable considering the kind of experience you're having.

Which is not to say that there might not have been better thought through procedures, which might have saved the girl and others like her.

No, it's not delusional. In every instance, apart from the deliberate or the running into the back off as you put it) when a MC or someone in a car has a crash, there is something they did wrong. In your example, someone fails to give way to you, then YOU should have seen and anticipated/seen this. This is the basis behind advanced driver training. It's protective and observational thing which should operate at all times. It should also operate when in a MV, but we usually have a false sense of that 'bubble' when we are in a car. But police and ambulance drivers over here have that thinking about their driving and it's open to members of the public too.

Re the thread and the issue. I certainly don't agree with an absolutist position as you put it. It most certainly is about risk management. What I'm suggesting is that when you have a crew of inexperienced crew, a crew that have had no experience, participating in a race, then the risks you are willing to make in order to win, should be far less than if you have a professional experienced crew on board.

And as for the comment she had 20 000 miles of experience? That's akin to saying if I hop in a car and drive 20 000 miles then I'm an experienced car driver? Even though I may have started off with mile one as never having driven a car before or hoping into a plane, having never having flown before and fly 20 000 miles (to be realistic, having flown at least 16 hours) and then adding those hours up and hey, I'm now experienced this does not compute. She was experienced in that vessel and on that trip.. I cannot relate this to being an experienced sailor at all. (though I will admit, it would be a great experience )

[pbmaise]

If a person falls from a roller coaster....

0. There is an initial shock and call to close down roller coasters.

1. If we find the rider intentionally bypassed the safety device intended to hold them in place we ascribe partial blame to the rider.

2. However, we investigate how the rider managed to defeat the safety device.

3. We ponder improvements to the safety device so it is less likely to be defeated.

4. We ask if we are properly sceeening the riders to make sure they are compatible with the ride and safety device.

5. We may make adjustments if need be to the type of passengers allowed on the roller coaster.

6. We reopen a safer ride.

It is item 4 and 5 that provoke the most debate here. At issue is not a physical characteristic. Nor is it a particular fine skill. Instead it is a state of mind that comes from experience and a healthy appreciation of the peril of the sea.

The person who has the most say in moving forward has the title insurance underwriter. It is that person that needs to be convinced that the next event is one that has a reasonable risk.

A lot of good suggestions here.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by pbmaise

If a person falls from a roller coaster....

0. There is an initial shock and call to close down roller coasters.

1. If we find the rider intentionally bypassed the safety device intended to hold them in place we ascribe partial blame to the rider.

2. However, we investigate how the rider managed to defeat the safety device.

3. We ponder improvements to the safety device so it is less likely to be defeated.

4. We ask if we are properly sceeening the riders to make sure they are compatible with the ride and safety device.

5. We may make adjustments if need be to the type of passengers allowed on the roller coaster.

6. We reopen a safer ride.

It is item 4 and 5 that provoke the most debate here. At issue is not a physical characteristic. Nor is it a particular fine skill. Instead it is a state of mind that comes from experience and a healthy appreciation of the peril of the sea.

The person who has the most say in moving forward has the title insurance underwriter. It is that person that needs to be convinced that the next event is one that has a reasonable risk.

A lot of good suggestions here.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I can't believe tethers are sold with those simple caribiners shown in Polux's post. That is insane. I would never use one of those in a million years. Those will flip open if you look at them sideways. They should be forbidden to be sold like that -- for lifting I bet they are.

The hooks should look like the ones on this tether:

Attachment 122096


As to the piston release halyard shackle at your end of your tether --

That introduces other risks, but might save your life if you go over the side while tethered. I always have a rescue knife, but being realistic, I think the chances are not all that good that I would be able to use it. I think your chances would be a lot better to be able to open that. So I think your idea is probably a good one.

Actually mines are like those you posted but you should know that those systems are extensively tested and are safe, all of them including the ones of such a reputable brand (in safety) as the ones I posted.

The reason I posted that photo was to show that they become smaller in length in Europe on the last years as a result of those accidents, but it seems that was missed.

[Rustic Charm]

This guy wasn't clipped on

Man overboard - Softbank Team Japan loses a sailor over the side - MySailing.com.au