Scott McCrea wrote:So, say you find that a caver has a "near miss" every 4.732 caving trips. That is easy, clear data for insurance companies to compare caving to motocross, scuba diving, frolf, mountian biking, etc and adjust rates accordingly. Same with attorneys. They could say you were involved in a "dangerous/hazardous" activity and they have IRB approved data to back it up.
Personally, I want to see the results and learn from them. But, I don't want it to bite us later.
A possible concern, but even if the survey did compare hours/trips to incidents - what if it shows caving to be a relatively low-risk activity instead? A non-injury "near miss" in every 100.742 trips? Or 1,000 hours of caving? It's my understanding that insurance companies base stats more on
actual accident statistics rather than somewhat-subjective "near miss" data. Aaron may be able to clarify that.
Does your life/health insurance company know you go caving/climbing/rappelling etc? Many years ago I had life insurance in NZ, and I needed a special rider because I declared caving as one of my interests. I could either choose to increase my payments slightly, or decrease my benefit slightly. I chose the latter, which was no big deal at the time.
An insurance person in NZ (unrelated to my policy) later told me if I had "forgotten" to mention caving and just happened to die horribly in a cave, it would probably still be covered. Given the relatively rare instance of cave fatalities, a grieving family can potentially generate a fair amount of bad press to encourage a reluctant insurance company to waive small technicalities and pay up. I realize the US insurance empire works a little differently, but frankly it doesn't keep me awake at night.
wyandottecaver wrote:just cause the respondents aren't revealed doesn't mean the data won't be used. In this case, I would almost be certain some risk analysis guru from the insurance companies will read it. They may or may not use it....but in this case the best policy is
Completely disagree. I, for one, would rather there be good participation and therefore (presumably) better data than just assuming or wondering (or ignoring) how caving really stacks up in terms of overall incidents, safety and training. I'm involved with ongoing cave visitation monitoring projects, and part of that has been to collect data to see just how much visitation certain caves receive in relation to the relatively minuscule amount of actual incidents requiring outside assistance. Translation - even taking all the spelunkers out there into account, caving may actually be statistically safer than many other outdoor pursuits. Regardless, we (the caving community) should constantly strive to improve our own risk awareness and overall caving safety.
I'll be filling out the questionnaire.