James: I'm no actuary, but I'd be willing to bet an insurance actuary bases rates on more than claims histories. Relying exclusively on claims histories for an accurate perception of risk would just be too much of a skew.  

But it is a mystery to me why an actuary wouldn't somehow have factored in ww kayaking by now because I sure seem to have had more "oh sh*t" moments kayaking than climbing and yet it was the limited climbing that I do that has me paying a crapload more for life insurance. 

Good discussion:

1. JD-G: Who is your broker/insurer? Seriously.

2. I suspect that participation in WW kayaking is so low that when they ask an actuary to compute the risk that they should factor into premiums, the answer is "Tilt."

3. If we had good data, there's no way anyone would ever argue that WW kayaking was safer than driving.

4. Risk in boating, like in climbing is the product of objective and subjective risks. There's a certain amount of risk inherent in, say, hitting the Green at 5K that guys like Christian, Chris, JP, Fish, and all the rest of the A-Team can mitigate with skill, fitness, experience, training, etc. Is the likelihood that they'll be in serious peril from all of the objective risks they encounter high? Not at all. Is it still massively higher than they risks that they encounter getting too and from the river (tweakers included)? Yes.

That's one of the reasons that I proposed basing river ratings on my Drunken Tuber Scale (TM), so that we can take skill out of the equation by imagining the most likely fate that would befall a drunken tuber in jean-shorts, high-tops with checker-pattern laces, a mesh Slayer World Tour half-shirt, and chinese knock-off Oakley Blades if he were to drift into a given rapid.

V = certain death. IV+ = near death and likely hospitalization, IV = one or more possible near drownings and/or lots of bruisings and an overall classification as a "bogus" experience, III+ = rude awakening/buzzkill and high probability of being "pantsed" by the current while clutching to a rock/log - followed by an earnest cost/benefit analysis of the pros of accepting help vs the cons of revealing the magnitude of the shrinkage once on shore , III = capsizing followed by flashing devil/hang-loose/rock-on sign to any onlookers who happen to be present, II = high-fiving and cracking another Schmidt Ice after each wave train, and I = passing out and drifting past the sand bar where your buddy saw all of the hot chicks hanging out last week.

Try it with your favorite rivers. FITW gets a V at the highest flows that people run it at, more due to blunt trauma than flush drowning, a IV+ when the cup is almost totally submerged, and a IV at the levels that I usually run it at....

I've been pushing it for years, but if this latest round of discussing communication and risk does nothing else, I hope that it will clearly establish that the DTS is a concept that the boating community needs to embrace, and soon.

Edited by JayB - 18 Apr 2013 at 12:18am

Jay, It's Banner Life insurance.  Here's a link for getting a quote.  Like the DTS rating system.

I signed up for Permanent Life Insurance. It costs a lot more than term but it has the benefit of basically being retirement savings that can be used as income tax free later in life.
This book basically details why this is the best way to save for retirement, since it basically exploits a tax loophole:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1425110827/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=18956529397&hvpos=1t2&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=19411300532014076181&hvpone=10.62&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_30kzmhbfyz_b

All my agent cared about was whether I scuba dived. That means, given how much I kayak, life insurance is an extremely high value (not for me of course)

These guys are totally messing up the calibration by wearing PFD's, having a BAL below 0.15, and not holding a Milwaukee's Best tall-boy in one hand, but I'm going to add it to this thread for reference purposes.