RNLI callout statistics put safety issues in perspective

oldsalt said:
Since then, I have taken their rescue statistics with a large pinch of salt.
Click to expand...

There are, indeed difficulties with the RNLI data (not statistics - just raw data) as they are based on a self determined "tick box" methodology where the person in charge of the incident is required to fill in a form placing the incident in the category where he (or she) best thinks it fits. It is not quite as crude as it sounds as they are given guidance to try and encourage consistency.

However, as Graham M376 points out, the categories are very crude and general. So when "Fire" is ticked it could be a minor electrical fire that disabled the boat or a major explosion with casualties. There is simply no way of knowing from the data the seriousness of the incident, whether there were other causes, the consequences or even the type of vessel involved.

The purpose of the data is to show how the RNLI's resources are used, not a comprehensive account of safety issues at sea. The data has to be used with caution, but it does over time give a fair picture of the nature of safety issues. It is therefore reasonable to use them as some evidence that fire is very low on the list of safety problems at sea as the numbers reported each year is very low. Of course not all fire incidents involve a lifeboat callout, so it is only a partial picture, which means you have to look at other sources to get a more comprehensive picture. Unfortunately (AFAIK) there is no source that collates data on fires related to boats, so we are left with the RNLI data as the best documented source, but recognise it is only partial.

There are even greater problems if you try to get an international picture as there are few sources that systematically collect and publish data. The USCG data is very comprehensive, but is reported in its own categories which are not the same as RNLI, but do have the advantage that they are consistent across the States. As I suggested earlier, and analysis of that data will show that if you just use the data related to reports from coastal incidents (as opposed to inland) which are more comparable with RNLI, you will find the pattern of "causes" very similar to the RNLI data. Fire is very low on their list as well. You can carry out much more detailed analysis because of the detail in the data, and this will show unsurprisingly that fire is more common in petrol powered sportsboats.

This debate highlights the difficulties in establishing cause/effect relationships. Do we start with a position (Sybarite's "Fire is the Biggest Danger" - for example) and then look for data to support that position. Or do we look at the data and see if we can draw any conclusions from what is recorded. Both approaches have their advocates - indeed discussing the pros and cons is the first lecture in any course on Research Methodology. If you take the first approach and the data does not support your hypothesis the first thing you do is blame the data and try and dismiss it (sounds familiar!). On the other hand the inductive approach (looking at the data) may well lead you to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to support a firm hypothesis.

That is probably where we are with this particular issue - which is why Sybarite (and probably many others) rely on perception which is enough to satisfy them!
 
Tranona said:
which is why Sybarite (and probably many others) rely on perception which is enough to satisfy them!
Click to expand...

...and if they'd started out by saying "Fire is the thing that scares me most" rather than "Fire is the biggest danger", we wouldn't have 60+ posts on this thread and god knows how many on the other :)

Pete
 
capnsensible said:
http://www.noonsite.com/Countries/S...sailor-found-dead-in-water-near-burning-yacht

A google search of 'yacht fire' is quite revealing.

No wonder that Navies, Merchant vessels and Commercial vessels take the risk of fire so seriously, wether its the biggest hazard or not!
Click to expand...

We can all find one offs to make a case for something, but that's all they are.
What is important is the totals of all those one offs...ie. the statistics.

In the example you gave earlier, about the boat your mate was on, everyone got off, nobody was injured or killed. Using your logic I could argue that it proves that fire is not a danger.
In your latest example; the guy died from drowning not from fire.

You see, it's very easy to play around with individual examples, but it contributes nothing to a reasoned discussion about the overall danger of fire in boating.

Nobody has said that fire is not potentially dangerous. Most have been saying put it in perspective as it is not the most dangerous issue facing us in boating.
 
He was badly injured by the explosion and fire and subsequently drowned.

I see that you keep mentioning statistics, I simply point out real events. John was a friend.

I saw a yacht burn and sink in St John. Another friend was injured in an explosion on a services yacht, skipper lost a leg. Etc.

My impression is that fire related incidents are in higher numbers around the world than admitted by some on here. Each of those is tragic, sometimes fatal. As I have said before, if all these threads do is highlight the need for awareness afloat, then its done its job.
 
Sybarite said:
I think that people of good sense will appreciate the point I have been making.
Click to expand...

Are you making a point? Sorry, mon vieux, but Rigger has completely out-argued you here. I suggest you accept that fire, however much you may personally and even logically fear it, is a very minor hazard of boating and move on.
 
prv said:
...and if they'd started out by saying "Fire is the thing that scares me most" rather than "Fire is the biggest danger", we wouldn't have 60+ posts on this thread and god knows how many on the other :)

Pete
Click to expand...

Indeed - then you could bring in capnsensible's examples of fires to help explain that fear and there might be a sensible discussion on how to avoid it. May even get some personal experiences of how to deal with it.
 
Rigger Mortice said:
You really do have a nerve don't you?

You made a statement that fire is the biggest danger in boating, I challenged you, you couldn't back it up. A decent person would have admitted he was wrong and would have apologised.

Where is your apology????
Click to expand...

Are you out of you cotton-picking mind? I said that fire is what I fear the most on a boat; you might have another opinion and if anybody owes an apology it is you for the name calling.
 
Searush said:
So you DO agree that it is not the "greatest danger" after all then?
Click to expand...

For me it is. The poll rates going overboard as the most popular. I don't believe it is because when the weather gets iffy we are wearing our harnesses. So, as an experienced sailor I still apprehend a fire more. You may have a different opinion. But, please don't tell me what mine is.
 
Sybarite said:
For me it is. The poll rates going overboard as the most popular. I don't believe it is because when the weather gets iffy we are wearing our harnesses. So, as an experienced sailor I still apprehend a fire more. You may have a different opinion. But, please don't tell me what mine is.
Click to expand...

IF you had expressed it as a personal issue at first rather than telling us all what we should fear you may have got less stick. My opinion has data to support it, have you found any to support yours yet?
 
IIRC Bob Shepton lost one of his boats to fire while visiting a fjord in Greenland, although no one was injured. I'd guess that the risks of fire and fire containment problems are greater in remote areas and higher latitudes.
 
Sybarite said:
Are you out of you cotton-picking mind? I said that fire is what I fear the most on a boat; you might have another opinion and if anybody owes an apology it is you for the name calling.
Click to expand...

You sir, are a liar.
Your initial thread title in this whole debate was "Fire;the biggest danger in boating" and you have never retracted that statement. When I posted US figures, and then RNLI figures, you attempted to say that they were either out of date, misleading, weighted incorrectly, selectively quoted/cherry picked, or otherwise wrong for a host of reasons. You have repeatedly told us about your abilities to handle figures to fully understand what they are telling us. You have told us that most people agree with you and that has been disproven. You then claim that you have common sense on your side.

You have repeatedly been asked to either quote figures to support your case, or your calculations to show how you arrive at your conclusions. You have repeatedly avoided doing so and have continued to try to fudge figures that do not support your stance.

Only after the whole discussion had gone on for many, many pages did you start to try to tweak what you had been saying and to metamorphose it into "what I fear most".....but that sleight of hand has been obvious for all to see.

Once more, I challenge you to either support your assertion that "Fire is the biggest danger in boating" by producing the figures to support it, or your calculations based on the figures that I have placed on the table, or retracting your initial assertion and apologising.

If you don't want to do that, we can move onto MAIB figures which further support my case. We can then move onto Australian and Kiwi figures which I am confident will do as well. I'll leave you to produce the French figures, but I'm sure you've already looked but decided not to shoot yourself in the foot with them.

I've got the staying power. Have you?
 
Sybarite said:
For me it is. The poll rates going overboard as the most popular. I don't believe it is because when the weather gets iffy we are wearing our harnesses. So, as an experienced sailor I still apprehend a fire more. You may have a different opinion. But, please don't tell me what mine is.
Click to expand...

So, why do you seem to object to other "experienced sailors" taking the opposite view and heaping mounds of evidence to support that view? You are only relying on your "perception" of danger which is very subjective.

As has been suggested many times, you might do better to look at the available evidence first before forming a view, rather than stating your view, then desperately looking for some supporting evidence - and usually failing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top