On 30 May, 10:01, Peter fsmail.net> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:38 am, "Stephen and Jane"
> ukgateway.net> wrote:
>>> In short, this is why disclaimers are signed, and as a rule USRowing
>>> requires all junior rowers to have their parents sign a disclaimer,
>>> and all collegiate athletes will end up signing one as well. CYA, I
>>> believe the acronym is. Disclaimers are free. Boat retrofits are not.
>>> The cheaper alternative always wins. As for litigation - that's why
>>> they have disclaimers. They know they are engaging in a potentially
>>> risky & life-threatening venture. Do we decry the lack of airbags in
>>> F1 cars?
>> F1 cars are subject to a huge raft of safety performance standards imposed
>> by the FIA There are specific rules as to which non-life-threatening
>> injuries are 'acceptable' as a result of impact at certain speeds, and which
>> life-threatening injuries aren't - and the manufacturers have to comply,
>> however technically difficult it may be. We have spoken to one such F1
>> manufacturer who was shocked at how few safety performance standards there
>> are in rowing - which takes place on a particularly hostile medium.
>> Much of this safety legislation came about after the death of Ayrton Senna
>> at Monaco in 1994, during an impact which propelled the front wheel of his
>> car into the cockpit. We are now able to see drivers walk away from what
>> appear to be horrific crashes - like David Coulthard and his 185 mph crash
>> last weekend in Monaco, when the front wheel of his car also came free and
>> bounced on the cockpit.
>> Rowing may be near the opposite end of the scale as regards potential risk,
>> but if it is technically possible to reduce that risk further by a simple,
>> cheap adaptation which actually enhances the boats chances of winning races
>> (you have to finish to be able to win) then it should be mandated by the
>> sport's governing bodies.
>> You surely know that even a small percentage risk of death is worth
>> addressing if it is possible to do so.
>> We take issue with your claim that 99.999%% of risk can be mitigated or
>> eliminated by education or avoidance. There are many risks we just have to
>> live with - that's life - but non-buoyant rowing racing shells in not one of
>> Jane and Stephen
> I think we do have to accept that society does put a price on life.
> My usual example is that we would have fewer deaths from fire if we
> were to put a fire station on every street corner.
> What is important in this example is the proportionality. Even at
> (say) GBP200 per seat for a professional buoyancy retrofit, that's
> probably less per boat than each of the clubs that swamped at NSR paid
> on entry fees, transport, accommodation, food, marquee hire, etc. And
> then add in all the personal expense by pupils, family and friends.
> P.S. Carl, approximately what do you think a professional craftsman
> would charge per seat for a decent job on a retrofit? Just ballpark,
> not a quote! ;-)