Comments on: The Balance of Risk

By: jarvisloop

jarvisloop — Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:30:55 +0000

This article reminds me of American football. I once read that injuries either remained the same or actually increased (depending upon the team) as more and more pads were added.

On a similar note, I always found it to be interesting that rugby – with its lack of protective padding – has always had fewer injuries than American football.

By: ch00f

ch00f — Thu, 18 Mar 2021 18:55:43 +0000

This reminds me of something I heard from a city planner. When it comes to roads, speed limits are almost irrelevant unless they are ruthlessly enforced. If you want people to drive slower, you need to increase the *perception* of danger. Make the road narrower or windier and they’ll slow down.

By: Skier Jim

Skier Jim — Wed, 11 Jan 2017 04:28:36 +0000

I worked as a ski patroller in Canada for 2 years. I got in trouble with the team/management because I was patrolling in uniform without a helmet. They felt it gave other ski area users a bad safety message (I pine for the 70’s and 80’s where bare headed skiing was the norm). I ended up wearing a helmet on duty and soon felt like jumping off more cliffs than I would have used to with my soft squishy head. I think that our heads have evolved to be the thickness and strength they are for a reason. I hear all these horror stories about “person cracked their head open” but I remind people that any serious trauma anywhere above the elbows and knees has the possibility to result in death. You may save your brain but break your neck or suffer a rotational-acceleration induced brain injury (which helmets are likely to increase not reduce, because the point of impact can be further away from your head’s rotational center of mass causing more moment/rotational acceleration).

I still would probably put on a helmet if I was planning to race downhill incredibly fast through trees and rocks etc. but generally I feel they have no net impact on safety and actually in the backcountry where you need to be alert for sights and sounds of e.g. an avalanche they are actually likely to make you less safe.

By: thekenemy

thekenemy — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:08:21 +0000

I have to say something about ABS here. The latest systems can apparently work very subtle and sometimes barely perceptable, under relatively light braking and for very short durations. And if you’re a fast driver you will probably adapt to it. That’s my impression at least, because recently I had to drive for a while with my ABS effectively disabled and I was suprised how easily I locked up the wheels, even though had been perfectly used to driving cars without ABS in the past.
And no, I’m not one of those idiots who keep driving 100 till 20m before the turn, then slam the brakes, then turn and then indicate, rather I’m the kind of idiot who starts coasting when he sees the turn a mile away.

By: Rodger Wrighthead

Rodger Wrighthead — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:08:24 +0000

Can anyone say Godmode? All your pie belongs to us?
Jokes aside, this is DI.

(p.s. Cynthia, are you a feminist?).

By: robinwilson2

robinwilson2 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:20:08 +0000

As a High School debater, I recall arguing a case about air-bags in cars, and/or automatic seat belts. In the evidence we used AGAINST the case, we cited a guy named Sam Peltzman, and the “Peltzman Effect”. He now has a wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect that documents his theory and research.

It is essentially the same argument made in this article – that people attempt to ‘normalize’ their behavior to a level of risk that is comfortable. As you increase safety in one area, they modify their behaviors that will increase their risk to compensate. And even though they may be safer in the intended area, their increase in risky behavior will have deleterious effects on the outcomes of other behaviors. The specific examples Peltzman cited were related to car safety improvements, and how they had a tendency to increase accidents with pedestrians.

By: Vrolock

Vrolock — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:24:30 +0000

[quote]Everyone said: “Darkside=Pie?! You should realize that everyone loves pie. And that’s not third person. Mmmhmmm”[/quote]

Join the dark side, we have PIE!!!

By: sweeper

sweeper — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:16:43 +0000

a1c: “There’s an argument against motorcycle helmet laws despite the ability of a helmet to protect in an accident”. I’d be interested in finding out if riders without helmets are less likely to have accidents due to their less-risky behaviour and also the behaviour of other road users. e.g are other road users more likely to give an unprotected rider the proper room.

And, in the martial arts examples, would the injuries at the dojo with less padding be due to the students getting hit harder, or due to them hitting harder themselves?

By: a1c

a1c — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:32:00 +0000

Make it idiot proof, invent a better idiot.

There’s an argument against motorcycle helmet laws despite the ability of a helmet to protect in an accident. Motorcycle airbags, body armor as well.

By: Rachelita

Rachelita — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:23:31 +0000

[quote]cutterjohn said: “That really amazing.. I’ve never thought about anything like that.

It is very true though, and i have a prime example.. Because of parachutes, a safety device, people are much more prone to hurl themselves, voluntarily mind you, out of perfectly good aircraft. ;)”[/quote]

I’m doing this in 2 weeks actually! I guess I’m looking for something to hit my target risk… xD