|
If there are 302 million people in the country and 1 person was killed by a big cat, then we can generalize that the chance of dying that way in a given year is 1 in 302 million. Sure, it doesn't mean you or I actually have even that much risk, because we probably spend less time around big cats than other people do, but if we're talking about a what society should do about a problem then a generalization works perfectly well.
If only 10 million people go kayaking (in any form) this year and 27 people die then you and I are about 30 times more likely to die than 27 in 302 million would suggest, but that isn't a problem that the rest of society should have to deal with. Society should deal with problems based on the effect to society as a whole. As a generalization, skydivers have about a 1 in 1000 chance of dying, which is fairly significant. For a skydiver that's a really good reason to educate yourself and be as careful as you reasonably can, but why should society pay to make skydiving less dangerous? The cost to society simply isn't significant. Kayaking isn't much different. It's a voluntary activity, and it's fairly safe. It should be up to the relatively few people who go kayaking to educate themselves, be prepared, and accept responsibility for what happens. If spending $1 in taxpayers funds would save more than $1 in taxpayer funds somewhere else it would make sense to spend the money. OTOH, spending millions in taxpayer money trying to keep a few people from killing themselves doesn't strike me as agood idea. We can get more return on the investment elsewhere.
|
|
It's a "statistic" New 
BoaterTalk 
