Before debating skills vs. equipment, please consider Risk Compensation

[sabbath999]

Interesting discussion.

I will just sit here and bask in my NOOBness knowing I don't have a clue who is right due to my lack of experience

 

[sambolino44]

It just occurred to me that, in an "Equipment vs. Training" debate, risk compensation is only relevant if someone is more likely to compensate due to equipment than due to training, or vice versa. Times like this make me wish I knew how to write a grant proposal.

 

[Thalassamania]

I guess a lot depends on who you are, but I think we're all guilty to a degree. When EAN became available I started to dive it almost exclusively ... on air tables ... sounds good, right? But I also "gave up" on the safety factors that I used to add to the Navy tables, I stopped adding 5 minutes to all dives.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

It just occurred to me that, in an "Equipment vs. Training" debate, risk compensation is only relevant if someone is more likely to compensate due to equipment than due to training, or vice versa. Times like this make me wish I knew how to write a grant proposal.

I'm not sure it tells us a lot about any specific person. It's more of a startistical thing. So if Alice is arguing that she is safer with a Pony than without, I wouldn't bring it up. But if Bob is arguing that ponies are safer than buddies overall, I would want to think about Risk Compensation and whether people overall are more likely to compensate for the perception of pony bottle safety than for the perception of buddy safety.

My n00bie guess is that statistically, people are more likely to compensate for the perceived safety of equipment than for the perceived safety of buddies because most people don't seem to have a very high opinion of the value of a buddy.

 

[seaducer]

It just occurred to me that, in an "Equipment vs. Training" debate, risk compensation is only relevant if someone is more likely to compensate due to equipment than due to training, or vice versa. Times like this make me wish I knew how to write a grant proposal.

Just a wild guess, but I would say the diver who compensates with equipment is more likely to increase their risky behavior, whereas the diver who seeks training is probably both more aware of the risks, and more willing to mitigate them, as opposed to decrease whatever additional margins the training lends them.

 

[redacted]

My n00bie guess is that statistically, people are more likely to compensate for the perceived safety of equipment than for the perceived safety of buddies because most people don't seem to have a very high opinion of the value of a buddy.

But buddies are so much more common than ponies in recreational diving!! I think it may be more a matter of training, convention, convenience, and cost than perceptions of safety.

 

[Thalassamania]

I know how to write grant proposals, but I've yet to work my way though the experimental design.

 

[gcbryan]

I know how to write grant proposals, but I've yet to work my way though the experimental design.

I took a class on Design of Experiment once but I'd hate to try to use that knowledge now! Anyway it's not particularly needed if we're just looking at 2 choices!

 

[Thalassamania]

Way more than two variable, way more.

 

[grazie42]

I think, for me, that risk compensation varies across activities.

In diving, using doubles for a recreational dive, does not change my behaviour compared to doing the same dive with a single but I noticed that my skiing became a lot riskier when wearing a helmet compared to when not.

I cant really explain why this is(and of course this is just my perception of my own behaviour and the added safety factor of each piece of gear) but if I tried Im sure that I could find more examples of "inconsistent" risk compensatory behaviour across activities...