PfcAJ
Contributor
I don't have a figure on how many dives were done in the entire. world. Sry. All I can show is that new divers are more likely to die than divers who have been certified longer.
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
Well, unlike you, I will withhold judgment until I can read the full report. Were these the only three categories? What about divers between 1 year and 10? Do we just ignore them in the statistics?I don't have a figure on how many dives were done in the entire. world. Sry. All I can show is that new divers are more likely to die than divers who have been certified longer.
I just took a gander at the 2009 Annual Diving Report from DAN. Page 64 has a graph of # of years certified and %of deaths reported in 1yr.
The curve looks bimodal at first till you consider the total population, how many divers would fit into each category, and how many years each category spans.
In the "certified less than 1yr" and "1yr" categories the total is 30ish % divers died fell into those two groups. For the greater than 10yrs category it has 40%. That seems to suggest to me that newer divers are more likely to experience a fatal accident. <1 and 1yr is a very defined group compared to ALL divers certified for greater than 10yrs.
n=48 for that particular year.
Most fatal accidents were also pretty shallow and off boats. Naturally, most dives are probably really shallow and off boats, but it's at least relevant to the discussion here.
Well, unlike you, I will withhold judgment until I can read the full report. Were these the only three categories? What about divers between 1 year and 10? Do we just ignore them in the statistics?
These divers probably account for the vast majority of divers, but if there are more new divers than old, the statistics will skew. Given that many people start diving, then give it up within a year, there is a very good chance that divers with 1 year or less are equal or greater in number than 10+ year divers.
A set of numbers with no background is essentially worthless. You can make them say whatever you want. Remember; 90% of statistics are false.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that taking a course just to be supervised, like the poster I was responding to said, develops a habit of relying on on the 'supervisor' to do the dive planning and decisions, which leads to dependent divers.T.C., I certainly agree about statistics often meaning little. But on your point about post-OW courses creating dependent divers maybe not. I would GUESS that the sheep being lead around always by DMs (while on vacation, etc.) probably has little to do with courses.
How do you reach the conclusion that newer divers are more likely to experience a fatal accident?
First the raw data says that divers with 10+ years are the greater number of incidents
AND
second the dive population data indicates that there are more people certified in the midrange ( as opposed to under 2 years or over 10 or more years) today than any other category.
AND
The DAN study concludes the average age of divers and length of time diving is on the rise and the highest it's ever been but that 55% of divers are diving under 10 years 45% over (30% under 2 yrs). So on straight percentage:
40% over 10 years
60% under 10
(35% under 2 yrs)
It seems to me it is evenly distributed amongst the groups, statistically.
Maybe you have other numbers than the 09 report?
I haven't read it because my computer is being stupid tonight. I will read it tomorrow at work, and debuke your conclusion further; however, Omission did a good job of pointing out that these groups are roughly equal, and not showing the conclusion you believe.Heh. Here we go again, trying to say what I'm thinking and what judgement I've passed. I read the report...unlike you.
Then you may want to relook at these statistics. If Omission is right, it'd make me wonder about the quality of your work.Stats was a decent chunk of my undergrad and I use simple stats semi-frequently in my day job.
I haven't read it because my computer is being stupid tonight. I will read it tomorrow at work, and debuke your conclusion further; however, Omission did a good job of pointing out that these groups are roughly equal, and not showing the conclusion you believe.
Then you may want to relook at these statistics. If Omission is right, it'd make me wonder about the quality of your work.
There are alot more variables involved to take these few numbers and state: New Divers dive more than old.
Judging from the way a lot of lot divers behave on a dive boat (spread their gear all over the place, block walkways with mounds of gear, take up all the storage space, etc). I would say that a lot of people NEED to take a boat diving course.