[majos]

To elaborate on my suggestion of emphasizing the experience of people who participate in dangerous activities: the goal would be to communicate that experience is necessary (not sufficient) for safety. I agree that these activities have some constant fraction of risk you can't remove.

[dahart]

I'm 100% with you that preparedness and awareness and skill and experience improve your odds and are good things. But if you want true risk awareness, you must know that experience only improves your odds a small amount compared to the time spent participating in the activity. And, like I said, you still have to gain that experience. Everyone who's experienced went through taking those risks when they were less experienced. Many survived because of luck, not because of experience.

Consider it this way: half of all drivers in auto collisions weren't at fault for the accident. You can be the best/safest driver in the world, and you might only reduce your odds of an accident by half. You can beat that easily by cutting your driving to 40%, or eliminate the chance of dying in a car crash by not driving (which might involve an alternative activity that carries it's own risks.)

There are similar factors that are out of your control in most risky activities. In rock climbing, there are loose and sharp and slippery grips, there is weather and equipment, and there are often people on the other end of your rope. There are a lot of potential failure points that skill simply doesn't eliminate, whereas time spent in an activity always compounds the risk.

Skydive once in a year and you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying. If you make 100 jumps in a year, your chances multiply to 1 in 1,000. There is no amount of skill that will overcome the compounded risk of prolonged exposure to an inherently risky activity.

[Malician]

I agree with your greater point, but your auto collision example is flawed.

If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume only one person can be at fault. Most collisions involve more than one mistake, and it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds by much better than half (there is more to defensive driving than just not making obvious mistakes.) This is not to claim, of course, that perfection is possible. Sometimes the chips are all stacked against you and there is nothing reasonable you can do.

[dahart]

> If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume only one person can be at fault.

You're absolutely right; there are at least some collisions that are the fault of both/multiple drivers, or of no drivers. I did assume that fault is most often one driver in two-car collisions (and I still think that), but I shouldn't have stated it as fact, I was thinking of it as the premise of the subsequent point. My apologies.

> Most collisions involve more than one mistake

That's a strong claim you're making. Citation needed.

Here are some resources:

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalit...

> it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds by much better than half

Of course. Single vehicle crashes are already more than half. 30% of all car fatalities have been attributed to drunk driving. Don't ever get in a car after drinking, and your odds are already much better. Another 30% of car deaths occur when speeding. Stay under the limit, and your odds are that much better again.

I hope you can see that I wasn't claiming that half is the actual limit, I was making a point about the arithmetic of probabilities. My point is that if factors out of your control are responsible for x% of crashes, then the maximum upper limit of good you can do by honing your skill and being the best driver in the world is 100-x%. The point is there's an upper bound to what training and preparedness can do for you, and that upper bound can always be exceeded by avoiding the risk in the first place.