What fatality rate for an activity is too high?
 

The swine flu talk got me thinking -

What fatality rate for an activity is too high, or not too high, for your tastes?

Let's define some terms.
"Activity" is a single instance of something - a day of motorcycling, a day of downhill skiing, an episode of swine flu, whatever.
"Fatality rate" is number of deaths per 100 such instances. 1 death per 100 instances would equate to a 1% chance of death.
"Too high" means the fatality rate is high enough that you would take serious/determined efforts to avoid the activity. You'd stop motorcycling, stop skiing, cut off contact with others to avoid getting flu, etc.

So - if the fatality rate for an activity were, say, 1 per 100 (1%) - is that too high? Is 1 per 1,000 (0.1%) too high? How about 1 per 10,000 (0.01%)?

Depends on the activity, I realize. Just curious about attitudes toward risk here.

I think it also depends on one's ability to reduce their personal risk.

For example, I can reduce the risk of getting hurt on a motorcycle by wearing a helmet and other protective gear...

My aversion to risk changed drastically when I got married and had kids 20 some years ago. Prior to that, I would probably draw the line just before running with the bulls. However, as family life grew on me, I realized that it wasn't just me I was risking, it was my family's husband/father I was risking. The stakes went way up at that point, so the risk aversion went up too.

I quit driving motorcycles completely, forget all about skydiving. I learned to find enjoyment in low-risk activities, like sailing and camping.

Now that the kids are grown and I'm into middle age, I can feel the risk aversion dropping again, but not to the early 20's levels.

First off you got to know where the fatalities come from. Skydiving is obvious.

But cleaning gutters and working high up on a latter can be very dangerous.

Drinking, drugged and tired driving are all real bad too.

In all seriousness,I probably have a better chance of getting killed during my daily coummute and driving around NYC every day, than I do powerboat racing, scuba diving, climbing or some of the other silly things I do for fun.

Well, I guess everyone does their own math.....

I have a motorcycle, but I drive it around my neighborhood on sunny days wearing full protective gear, never tired or under the influence. I rarely go above 45mph. It may seem lame, and sort of 'missing the point' of having a bike, but it works for me. I'm just in it to hear that beautiful Termingnoni exhaust and to give the throttle a squirt now and again.

Oddly, bicycling scares me way more than motorcycle riding. You have far less gear on, your less visible, and in city traffic with distracted drivers...yikes. I've changed my riding style in the past couple years and become far more cautious.

I do a bit of free climbing when I am out hiking, often when I come across an interesting rock feature. I'm typically pretty timid, but on occasion I have gotten myself up 100ft and thought, "so if I fall right now.......". I've defintely gotten more conservative as I have gotten older.

We all do our own math. Your number could be up on the way to work this morning. You just don't know.

I tend to avoid 100%.

the risk has to be considered relative to the fun.



and we all have our own ways of rationalizing. as i lanesplit down the 405 during rush hour, i know i'm taking a chance.but i see the people stuck in cars. the average citizen spends almost a week of their lives every year going nowhere in traffic. i figure the amount i'm shortening my lifespan by riding, and the amount they're wasting in a car, even out. and i'm the one enjoying myself.

My thoughts exactly. My prime mode of transportation from age 5 to 22 is now, to me, the most dangerous thing on the road. Only because there are so many HORRIBLE drivers. Countless times I've watched drivers in front of me just lazily drift into the side of the road with no effort to correct their error. I think "If I were on a bike, I'd be hit".

My dad called this increased mode of cautiousness, the loss of "the killer instinct". I guess the older we get the more enlightened to our mortality we become. So I think aversion to risk increases commensurate with age.

It's why 18yo kids flew P-51's in WWII and 23yo+ were given bombers.

Concur. I have become more risk averse since getting married. But motorcycling gives me so much pleasure, that I'd just about rather die than live without a bike. I was bikeless for 11 days until just getting my new one last weekend. It was a tough 11 days and I so hated getting into my 330i to go to the grocery store or gym.

Okay, but what is the number? That's what I am curious about.

Is there a fatality rate, whether it be 1% or 0.001%, that is likely to make you avoid an activity?

I realize most of us don't actually know the actual fatality rate associated with most of our activities. I don't, anyway.

But does that mean we also don't have any view on what fatality rate we'd consider too high?

For example, for me, I'd think 0.1% is too high, for practically any activity. A 1 in 1,000 chance of death per each day or each instance - no thanks.

0.01% or 1 in 10,000 - okay, that sounds lots better. I'll do it occassionally, if it is really fun or quite profitable. But I probably wouldn't do it every day of the year (since 365 x 1/10,000 = 3.6% per year.)

0.001% or 1 in 100,000 - I'm having a hard time mustering any concern. I'll do it every day if I feel like it.

You?

I'm with Varmint on this one... it has to do with the fun involved. It probably would look like this diagram, where I'd stay in the green area:




http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1241110751.jpg

Don't think there is a magic number. I certainly don't think about a specific number. I have faith in my survival instinct. I don't ride a mountain bike on 2x6 nailed to the side of a mountain. I haven't given much thought to climbing Everest. This is partly due to lack of desire and partly due to a desire of not dying.

re: bicycling...It is risky in the wrong environment, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. Bicycling keeps me in shape physically as well as mentally. If I don't ride, there's a high probability I will get fat, lazy, and very cranky. If I do ride, I incur a very slight risk of injury or death.

Motorcyling, OTOH, isn't an activity I wish to engage, and that's despite the incredible allure. I think the risk of injury or death is higher, and the only benefit, to me, is the freedom and mental aspect. So for now, I will try to avoid admiring Beemers and Ducatis.

you cant put a number on something like this...well, you can with 100% certainty, right at the point of death. guaranteed, you would have stopped the activity if you had the chance.

life is full of risk. my job can kill me. i now work, 660 meters in a mountianside. one cave-in or a fire, and i am dead.

how would you parents vote for your kids?

You know along the lines of us assigning a risk probability to a behavior that is without factual basis....

I've often wondering if there was a great likelihood for getting in an accident or being mugged if you go out of your way to buy a lottery ticket than the chances of winning the lottery?

Who actually has researched and quantified the death risk of all their activities?

I prefer Han Solo's credo: "Never tell me the odds!"

This Thread is a joke...life has a 100% risk factor.

You can figure out the risk for some activities. We've discussed motorcycling in the past. 33 deaths per 100MM miles ridden, was what sammyg came up with. If ride 5,000 miles/yr, then 0.002 deaths per year or a 0.2% chance per year, for the average rider. Or 2% chance for every 10 years of riding.

I'm not much for statistics. But I know when I stopped an activity. One summer I had a chocker setting job in order to build up school funds. After I quit to return to school, the guy who took my place died in a logging accident. I gave my caulks away...never to return to a high paying logging job.

BTW, logging isn't fun. If it was, idiots would pay to be able to do it. :rolleyes:

My rule of thumb is when it gets more dangerous than driving my SUV at 80 mph down I-25, it's too dangerous.