28 Mar 2005 21:38:34
The Dennises
windsurfing death in australia?

Just caught the end of a news item on the radio but missed the guts of it.
Didn't hear anything more about it on the TV news. Does anyone know the
story?




29 Mar 2005 15:49:16
DavMen
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

I didn't hear of any Windsurfing deaths here in Sydney, But there was a
kitting accident at Kurnell (Botany Bay Syd.)
Some Kiter landed face first (ouch) on some rocks. Report said fairly
serious facial damage prob. oyster covered rocks.
DavMen



The Dennises wrote:
> Just caught the end of a news item on the radio but missed the guts
of it.
> Didn't hear anything more about it on the TV news. Does anyone know
the
> story?



29 Mar 2005 16:26:52
Berend de Boer
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

Another kiter. It's time for people to realize that kiting is an
extreme sport, and an extremely dangerous one too.

The percentage of kiters that has had serious accidents or were killed
must be huge. Anyone has statistics?



29 Mar 2005 16:31:22
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

> Another kiter. It's time for people to realize that kiting is an
> extreme sport, and an extremely dangerous one too.

Others just die watching TV



29 Mar 2005 19:28:16
Berend de Boer
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

Let me tell you that others die just sleeping! Imagine that!!

And some people don't die when jumping of a high building.

So this all proves that sleeping is dangerous and jumping from a sky
scraper isn't.

Thanks for sharing your insight.



30 Mar 2005 08:07:18
Brian
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

> Let me tell you that others die just sleeping! Imagine that!!
>
> And some people don't die when jumping of a high building.
>
> So this all proves that sleeping is dangerous and jumping from a sky
> scraper isn't.
>
> Thanks for sharing your insight.


I'm pretty sure that I slept thru the night without dying. If not though, I
must be in hell.. because I'm typing in rec dot instead of going sailing.

Brian




30 Mar 2005 12:22:53
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

Berend de Boer wrote:
> Let me tell you that others die just sleeping! Imagine that!!
>
> And some people don't die when jumping of a high building.
>
> So this all proves that sleeping is dangerous and jumping from a sky
> scraper isn't.

I think it's important not to trivialize the risk analysis of doing an
activity. Using arguments like that can give people a false sense of
security and cause them to not understand the risks.

All activity has some risk associated with it. The risks associated
with some activities are greater than others. If someone wants to go
kitesurfing (or windsurfing, or skydiving, or rockclimbing, or
whatever), that's fine, but they should be able to objectively evalute
the risks of the activity.

I know you were being facetious, but your argument about sleeping and
jumping from a building was incorrect in a couple of areas. First,
people who die sleeping don't die from the act of sleeping. They from
something else while they are sleeping. People who die from jumping
from buildings do so specifically because of that activity. Second,
you would need to compare the total amount of time sleeping versus the
total amount of time jumping from buildings to get an accurate
comparison of the risks. I can sleep for 8 hours and have a very low
chance of dying, but if I jumped from buildings for 8 hours I would
have a very high chance of dying.

You hear these types of argument all the time in the rockclimbing
community when a climber dies. Someone will usually make a statement
like: since you can also die while riding a bicycle, rockclimbing is
not any more dangerous than riding a bicycle. There's also a lot of
trivialization of the cause of how they died. They will blame it on
inexperience or on improper use of the equipment with the underlying
theme that it won't happen to them because they are experienced and
they use the equipment properly. I'm sure that's a self-defense
mechanism--who wants to think they are voluntarily putting themselves
in a position to die.

A good rule of thumb when considering the risk of an activity is this:
How likely is something to go wrong, and when it does, what is the
chance that it will lead to severe injury or death?

Consider BASE jumping. Relatively speaking, the chance of something
going wrong is pretty low. Most jumps go off without a hitch. But
when something does go wrong, there is an extremely high chance of
severe injury or death. You literally have a fraction of a second to
fix things before you end up dead. So going into that sport, you
should know that most of the time things will go okay, but when they
don't, you could easily end up dead.

Compare that to windsurfing. The chance of something going wrong is
pretty high. We fall off the board all the time for a variety of
reasons. But the chance of getting severely injured is low. Even when
you do fall off, it's not like you really have to do anything special
to prevent injury.

But with kitesurfing, when something goes wrong, you have to be able to
depower the kite or there's a good chance you'll be severely injured.
That fact should not be trivialized. Kitesurfing might give you more
reward, but you take more risk to get it.



31 Mar 2005 10:38:50
Brett & Yvette Denning
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

the only thing I heard, was a young boy was paddling a sailboard (board
only) on lake hume, victoria, when he got into difficulty and drowned. Worse
part is was only metres from shore and his familiy was with him..





30 Mar 2005 20:13:29
news.gosiouxlookout.com
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

Found this link:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12672197%255E1702,00.html

Thoughts and prayers to the family.




30 Mar 2005 19:03:36
DavMen
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

Here is the link to the kite surfer accident.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12654282-1702,00.html

DavMen

The Dennises wrote:
> Just caught the end of a news item on the radio but missed the guts
of it.
> Didn't hear anything more about it on the TV news. Does anyone know
the
> story?



30 Mar 2005 21:53:29
Paul Braunbehrens
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

I agree with most of what you say, in fact I was about to make a
similar post, but I think you omitted on major point. People engaged
in a physical activity such as SCUBA, windsurfing etc. do sometimes die
of, let's say, a heart attack. People who are sleeping a lot, watching
TV a lot, and eating a lot of junk food, and don't windsurf, have a
higher risk of death due to their body being in bad shape.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that risk is a little bit more
complex than you make it out to be. Overall, I'd be willing to bet
that windsurfers have a higher life expectancy than obese couch
potatoes. So in some ways, Windsurfing is less risky than not
windsurfing.

There are some sports that have a much higher risk, and there is a
chart floating around out there somewhere. I can't find the URL (and
this is about 10 years old) but here it is for what it's worth.

The discussion that follows typically centers around the fact that you
are more likely to die while sleeping than in a fire. That is not what
it says. It says that just living carries a risk, some of us would say
a certainty, of death.

I think Windsurfing is probably somewhere between swimming and SCUBA
diving... or if you like, very close to "Living".

I have been told that this chart was used in legal proceedings and the
company that compiled it carried a lot of clout. Here's the chart:


COMPARATIVE RISK OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES

Estimates of Fatal Risk

fatalities
Activity per million hrs
-------- ---------------
Skydiving 128.71
General Aviation 15.58
On-road Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 1.98
Living (all causes of death) 1.53
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Passenger cars .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
Hunting .08
Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
Home Living (active) .027
Traveling in a School Bus .022
Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
Residential Fire .003




Compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Design News, 10-4-93)


In article <1112214173.819930.264580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
<ihatespam@kudos.00server.com > wrote:

> Berend de Boer wrote:
> > Let me tell you that others die just sleeping! Imagine that!!
> >
> > And some people don't die when jumping of a high building.
> >
> > So this all proves that sleeping is dangerous and jumping from a sky
> > scraper isn't.
>
> I think it's important not to trivialize the risk analysis of doing an
> activity. Using arguments like that can give people a false sense of
> security and cause them to not understand the risks.
>
> All activity has some risk associated with it. The risks associated
> with some activities are greater than others. If someone wants to go
> kitesurfing (or windsurfing, or skydiving, or rockclimbing, or
> whatever), that's fine, but they should be able to objectively evalute
> the risks of the activity.
>
> I know you were being facetious, but your argument about sleeping and
> jumping from a building was incorrect in a couple of areas. First,
> people who die sleeping don't die from the act of sleeping. They from
> something else while they are sleeping. People who die from jumping
> from buildings do so specifically because of that activity. Second,
> you would need to compare the total amount of time sleeping versus the
> total amount of time jumping from buildings to get an accurate
> comparison of the risks. I can sleep for 8 hours and have a very low
> chance of dying, but if I jumped from buildings for 8 hours I would
> have a very high chance of dying.
>
> You hear these types of argument all the time in the rockclimbing
> community when a climber dies. Someone will usually make a statement
> like: since you can also die while riding a bicycle, rockclimbing is
> not any more dangerous than riding a bicycle. There's also a lot of
> trivialization of the cause of how they died. They will blame it on
> inexperience or on improper use of the equipment with the underlying
> theme that it won't happen to them because they are experienced and
> they use the equipment properly. I'm sure that's a self-defense
> mechanism--who wants to think they are voluntarily putting themselves
> in a position to die.
>
> A good rule of thumb when considering the risk of an activity is this:
> How likely is something to go wrong, and when it does, what is the
> chance that it will lead to severe injury or death?
>
> Consider BASE jumping. Relatively speaking, the chance of something
> going wrong is pretty low. Most jumps go off without a hitch. But
> when something does go wrong, there is an extremely high chance of
> severe injury or death. You literally have a fraction of a second to
> fix things before you end up dead. So going into that sport, you
> should know that most of the time things will go okay, but when they
> don't, you could easily end up dead.
>
> Compare that to windsurfing. The chance of something going wrong is
> pretty high. We fall off the board all the time for a variety of
> reasons. But the chance of getting severely injured is low. Even when
> you do fall off, it's not like you really have to do anything special
> to prevent injury.
>
> But with kitesurfing, when something goes wrong, you have to be able to
> depower the kite or there's a good chance you'll be severely injured.
> That fact should not be trivialized. Kitesurfing might give you more
> reward, but you take more risk to get it.
>


31 Mar 2005 23:01:23
Mike LaRonde
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

good post

we are designed for pushing the envelope. our capability for adaption is
mind blowing. when you look at what has been done in indivudal sports such
as gymnastics, martial arts, and also in music, you can see that there is
almost no limit to what the human body can achieve.

but I think the problem with some extreme sports is, people are pushing the
limit on their machines before they have learned thier own personal limits.



<ihatespam@kudos.00server.com > wrote in message
news:1112214173.819930.264580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Berend de Boer wrote:
> > Let me tell you that others die just sleeping! Imagine that!!
> >
> > And some people don't die when jumping of a high building.
> >
> > So this all proves that sleeping is dangerous and jumping from a sky
> > scraper isn't.
>
> I think it's important not to trivialize the risk analysis of doing an
> activity. Using arguments like that can give people a false sense of
> security and cause them to not understand the risks.
>
> All activity has some risk associated with it. The risks associated
> with some activities are greater than others. If someone wants to go
> kitesurfing (or windsurfing, or skydiving, or rockclimbing, or
> whatever), that's fine, but they should be able to objectively evalute
> the risks of the activity.
>
> I know you were being facetious, but your argument about sleeping and
> jumping from a building was incorrect in a couple of areas. First,
> people who die sleeping don't die from the act of sleeping. They from
> something else while they are sleeping. People who die from jumping
> from buildings do so specifically because of that activity. Second,
> you would need to compare the total amount of time sleeping versus the
> total amount of time jumping from buildings to get an accurate
> comparison of the risks. I can sleep for 8 hours and have a very low
> chance of dying, but if I jumped from buildings for 8 hours I would
> have a very high chance of dying.
>
> You hear these types of argument all the time in the rockclimbing
> community when a climber dies. Someone will usually make a statement
> like: since you can also die while riding a bicycle, rockclimbing is
> not any more dangerous than riding a bicycle. There's also a lot of
> trivialization of the cause of how they died. They will blame it on
> inexperience or on improper use of the equipment with the underlying
> theme that it won't happen to them because they are experienced and
> they use the equipment properly. I'm sure that's a self-defense
> mechanism--who wants to think they are voluntarily putting themselves
> in a position to die.
>
> A good rule of thumb when considering the risk of an activity is this:
> How likely is something to go wrong, and when it does, what is the
> chance that it will lead to severe injury or death?
>
> Consider BASE jumping. Relatively speaking, the chance of something
> going wrong is pretty low. Most jumps go off without a hitch. But
> when something does go wrong, there is an extremely high chance of
> severe injury or death. You literally have a fraction of a second to
> fix things before you end up dead. So going into that sport, you
> should know that most of the time things will go okay, but when they
> don't, you could easily end up dead.
>
> Compare that to windsurfing. The chance of something going wrong is
> pretty high. We fall off the board all the time for a variety of
> reasons. But the chance of getting severely injured is low. Even when
> you do fall off, it's not like you really have to do anything special
> to prevent injury.
>
> But with kitesurfing, when something goes wrong, you have to be able to
> depower the kite or there's a good chance you'll be severely injured.
> That fact should not be trivialized. Kitesurfing might give you more
> reward, but you take more risk to get it.
>




02 Apr 2005 11:10:28
Kevin K
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

I would put windsurfing in at around 0.30. It would interesting to
know what the reak risk is?

Kevin


>
> I think Windsurfing is probably somewhere between swimming and SCUBA
> diving... or if you like, very close to "Living".
>
> I have been told that this chart was used in legal proceedings and the
> company that compiled it carried a lot of clout. Here's the chart:
>
>
> COMPARATIVE RISK OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES
>
> Estimates of Fatal Risk
>
> fatalities
> Activity per million hrs
> -------- ---------------
> Skydiving 128.71
> General Aviation 15.58
> On-road Motorcycling 8.80
> Scuba Diving 1.98
> Living (all causes of death) 1.53
> Swimming 1.07
> Snowmobiling .88
> Passenger cars .47
> Water skiing .28
> Bicycling .26
> Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
> Hunting .08
> Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
> Home Living (active) .027
> Traveling in a School Bus .022
> Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
> Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
> Residential Fire .003
>
>
>


03 Apr 2005 06:13:11
bsinclair
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

Must be something lost in translation. Spending a million hours in a
burning house carries a .003 risk of death?
Does not matter.
I gotta agree that windsurfing probably increases your lifespan rather than
shortens it. I'm not so sure about kiting though.
bs
......
> company that compiled
> COMPARATIVE RISK OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES
>
> Estimates of Fatal Risk
>
> fatalities
> Activity per million hrs
> -------- ---------------
> Skydiving 128.71
> General Aviation 15.58
> On-road Motorcycling 8.80
> Scuba Diving 1.98
> Living (all causes of death) 1.53
> Swimming 1.07
> Snowmobiling .88
> Passenger cars .47
> Water skiing .28
> Bicycling .26
> Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
> Hunting .08
> Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
> Home Living (active) .027
> Traveling in a School Bus .022
> Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
> Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
> Residential Fire .003
>
>
>
>
> Compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Design News, 10-4-93)
>
>
> In article <1112214173.819930.264580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <ihatespam@kudos.00server.com> wrote:
>
> > Berend de Boer wrote:
> > > Let me tell you that others die just sleeping! Imagine that!!
> > >
> > > And some people don't die when jumping of a high building.
> > >
> > > So this all proves that sleeping is dangerous and jumping from a sky
> > > scraper isn't.
> >
> > I think it's important not to trivialize the risk analysis of doing an
> > activity. Using arguments like that can give people a false sense of
> > security and cause them to not understand the risks.
> >
> > All activity has some risk associated with it. The risks associated
> > with some activities are greater than others. If someone wants to go
> > kitesurfing (or windsurfing, or skydiving, or rockclimbing, or
> > whatever), that's fine, but they should be able to objectively evalute
> > the risks of the activity.
> >
> > I know you were being facetious, but your argument about sleeping and
> > jumping from a building was incorrect in a couple of areas. First,
> > people who die sleeping don't die from the act of sleeping. They from
> > something else while they are sleeping. People who die from jumping
> > from buildings do so specifically because of that activity. Second,
> > you would need to compare the total amount of time sleeping versus the
> > total amount of time jumping from buildings to get an accurate
> > comparison of the risks. I can sleep for 8 hours and have a very low
> > chance of dying, but if I jumped from buildings for 8 hours I would
> > have a very high chance of dying.
> >
> > You hear these types of argument all the time in the rockclimbing
> > community when a climber dies. Someone will usually make a statement
> > like: since you can also die while riding a bicycle, rockclimbing is
> > not any more dangerous than riding a bicycle. There's also a lot of
> > trivialization of the cause of how they died. They will blame it on
> > inexperience or on improper use of the equipment with the underlying
> > theme that it won't happen to them because they are experienced and
> > they use the equipment properly. I'm sure that's a self-defense
> > mechanism--who wants to think they are voluntarily putting themselves
> > in a position to die.
> >
> > A good rule of thumb when considering the risk of an activity is this:
> > How likely is something to go wrong, and when it does, what is the
> > chance that it will lead to severe injury or death?
> >
> > Consider BASE jumping. Relatively speaking, the chance of something
> > going wrong is pretty low. Most jumps go off without a hitch. But
> > when something does go wrong, there is an extremely high chance of
> > severe injury or death. You literally have a fraction of a second to
> > fix things before you end up dead. So going into that sport, you
> > should know that most of the time things will go okay, but when they
> > don't, you could easily end up dead.
> >
> > Compare that to windsurfing. The chance of something going wrong is
> > pretty high. We fall off the board all the time for a variety of
> > reasons. But the chance of getting severely injured is low. Even when
> > you do fall off, it's not like you really have to do anything special
> > to prevent injury.
> >
> > But with kitesurfing, when something goes wrong, you have to be able to
> > depower the kite or there's a good chance you'll be severely injured.
> > That fact should not be trivialized. Kitesurfing might give you more
> > reward, but you take more risk to get it.
> >




03 Apr 2005 09:21:25
Dan Weiss
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

One fact in the mix: The insurance industry recently investigated the
number of claims made against windsurfing schools. I was surprised with the
findings: not one claim for personal injury or death (read: zero) has ever
been filed against an American (USA) windsurfing school. Ever.

-Dan


"Kevin K" <kevin_nzl88@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:607636b9.0504021110.22833269@posting.google.com...
>I would put windsurfing in at around 0.30. It would interesting to
> know what the reak risk is?
>
> Kevin
>
>
>>
>> I think Windsurfing is probably somewhere between swimming and SCUBA
>> diving... or if you like, very close to "Living".
>>
>> I have been told that this chart was used in legal proceedings and the
>> company that compiled it carried a lot of clout. Here's the chart:
>>
>>
>> COMPARATIVE RISK OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES
>>
>> Estimates of Fatal Risk
>>
>> fatalities
>> Activity per million hrs
>> -------- ---------------
>> Skydiving 128.71
>> General Aviation 15.58
>> On-road Motorcycling 8.80
>> Scuba Diving 1.98
>> Living (all causes of death) 1.53
>> Swimming 1.07
>> Snowmobiling .88
>> Passenger cars .47
>> Water skiing .28
>> Bicycling .26
>> Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
>> Hunting .08
>> Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
>> Home Living (active) .027
>> Traveling in a School Bus .022
>> Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
>> Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
>> Residential Fire .003
>>
>>
>>




05 Apr 2005 15:58:37
Tom - Chicago
Re: windsurfing death in australia?

Kitesurfing - like high altitude mountaineering - seems to have a high
degree of fatal obective risk - that is risk you cannot control - and
therefore too many highly skilled people die.

Windsurfing has a relatively low level of objective risk - and I would guess
that most people who die windsurfing make a serious error in sailing
location, time, equipment, lack of breakdown prep/self-rescue strategy.

Tom - Chicago


"Kevin K" <kevin_nzl88@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:607636b9.0504021110.22833269@posting.google.com...
>I would put windsurfing in at around 0.30. It would interesting to
> know what the reak risk is?
>
> Kevin
>
>
>>
>> I think Windsurfing is probably somewhere between swimming and SCUBA
>> diving... or if you like, very close to "Living".
>>
>> I have been told that this chart was used in legal proceedings and the
>> company that compiled it carried a lot of clout. Here's the chart:
>>
>>
>> COMPARATIVE RISK OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES
>>
>> Estimates of Fatal Risk
>>
>> fatalities
>> Activity per million hrs
>> -------- ---------------
>> Skydiving 128.71
>> General Aviation 15.58
>> On-road Motorcycling 8.80
>> Scuba Diving 1.98
>> Living (all causes of death) 1.53
>> Swimming 1.07
>> Snowmobiling .88
>> Passenger cars .47
>> Water skiing .28
>> Bicycling .26
>> Flying (scheduled domestic airlines) .15
>> Hunting .08
>> Cosmic Radiation from transcontinental flights .035
>> Home Living (active) .027
>> Traveling in a School Bus .022
>> Passenger Car Post-collision fire .017
>> Home Living, active & passive (sleeping) .014
>> Residential Fire .003
>>
>>
>>
>




16 Apr 2005 22:25:17
Tsunami
Re: windsurfing death in australia?


>
> we are designed for pushing the envelope. our capability for adaption is
> mind blowing. when you look at what has been done in indivudal sports such
> as gymnastics, martial arts, and also in music, you can see that there is
> almost no limit to what the human body can achieve.
>
> but I think the problem with some extreme sports is, people are pushing
the
> limit on their machines before they have learned thier own personal
limits.
>
>
*SPOT ON!!!* and that is the problem with kitesurfing. It is too easy to
learn.
Hold on teabaggers, don't get upset yet! What I mean is that (1) you learn
gear the same as experts use, not a big floaty board in 4kn and the best you
can do is 2kn boardspeed.
(2) as soon as you can fly the kite you're planing (fast).. even if only
downwind and can't turn etc.

EG: in windsurfing, one does not go out in 25kn and jump 20ft high for
what....about 4 years at *best*
In days gone by it was about 10yrs.
You learn to sail slow, then gybe, then waterstart, then get a smaller board
and learn those all over again. When confident on a sinker you go out in
waves, or start jumping in 25kn of "flat" water.

EG: Kites.... "I've seen that on TV it's cool". You go get a kite (same as
a pro uses) and a board (same as the pro uses). Some people forget all about
lessons and a lot of kite flying on land, then go straight to the river or
lake after 1hr practise in the park.
They fly the kite and get planing. Yaay!! Wind in my hair etc. All good fun.
Then they go out on a gusty day, 12kn suddenly becomes 30, even for only
15seconds, and they're dragged across the carpark into traffic.

If that was windsurfing, the sail would twist off, dumping the excess power.
If worst came to worst, you'd get a catapault and damaged pride only.

Kitesurfing is dangerous. It is for advanced windsurfers looking for a light
wind alternative, *NOT* for all and sundry who want to look "hardcore" cos
they saw it on TV and can't afford a freestyle motorcross bike