|
" That's my point. The rating system protects people who have not had the experience or do not yet have the skill to know better"
So this isn't about rating some rapid's difficulty, it's about protecting people from themselves? To protect people who are unable to read water from going in over their head?
Next you're going to suggest that rapids should have signs upstream from them, warning people that they are dangerous, and that they might get hurt or killed when running them.
This sport has an inherent risk and danger factor, no matter how much you seem to want to take that risk and danger away. There is no way to make it perfectly safe, but the most effective way to limit risk and danger is by educating and teaching people. Someone going on a river at higher levels won't encounter the same difficulties as someone running it at lower levels. Next you're going to suggest adding water levels and relative difficulties. Where does that sliding scale end?
People have to take responsibility for their own actions, not blaming a book or someone else when a rapid turns out to be a lot more difficult or dangerous than they imagined it would be. There is no such thing as a safe rapid, but there is such a thing as safety-consciousness, scouting and basing the decision to run on skill, a risk assessment and a good gut feeling. A rating will not replace that.
|
|
Let me get this straight, you honestly believe that the rating system is there to protect those who can't read water? New 
BoaterTalk 
