Skiing and Risk

1)  And I showed that if you skied every day you are WAY more likely to die from skiing then from a homicide
2)  I never included Injuries - not sure why this is a point
3) This may be true - especially if all on the same trail
4) I'm honestly not even sure what you are trying to say here.  Ratios are ratios, they are constant.  That's the point - I used current skier death ratios to compare if everyone skied everyday to guns being in our society everyday.
5) Gun owner deaths vs skier deaths would be interesting
6) The driving example is very different.  It compares the probability of dying for the average american day of driving vs the average american day of skiing.  You should read it
7) Not sure what you are saying here
8) Sure
9) You're more likely to die during an average ski day then an average day of driving.  You are way more likely to do from skiing then a homicide.  Up to you if you consider that dangerous.  This obviously doesn't break down between skiing in the woods alone vs skiing a green trail mid week.
10) I ski, occasionally in the woods alone, I know it's dangerous, I accept the risks
11)

billyymc wrote

 Camp's comments about his two injuries that caused him to miss work were skiing injuries are a perfect example. He had that experience and based on that experience he concludes that skiing is dangerous.

It has to do with the level of which one ski's. I used myself as an example but there are plenty. I'll just use a few from our crew. We've all skied at a high level for a very long time.
One buddy has blown both knees out and has had both totally reconstructed. Another was air lifted off Mountain Run after hitting a tower while race training. Another has more screws and plates in his body than your local hardware store. AZ has been concussed more than Mike Tyson.
It's not a question of if, but rather when and how bad.
Downhill mountain biking, riding sleds, and a multitude of other sports are the same way.
Doesn't mean one shouldn't do them, enjoy them, live their life for them etc etc.
Maybe get off the blue squares dude

I"m clearly not capable of explaining why your "ratios are ratios" comment is illogical thinking in this case.

The gun exposure incidence doesn't change. So neither should the skier incidence. Both have to remain constant. You're changing one. The logic is flawed. I get what you're trying to say and do, but it's flawed.

Shake hands and agree to disagree on this. I've said all I have to say.

campgottagopee wrote

Maybe get off the blue squares dude

Funny guy. How much did you ski this year? Missed some good runs on Oly and Labyrinth  Olympian is labelled experts only, so I must be an expert skier.

IMO riding my motorcycle is more dangerous because of the potential consequences of any car/bike encounter. I reduce that danger by mitigating the risk with behaviors like choosing when and where I ride. Based on statistics my fear could be irrational, but like your ski buds who have been hurt I've known enough people who were severely injured or killed on the road to develop an irrational, emotion based position.

I can't believe I can't convince the internet I'm right and it's wrong. I hate the internet.



 

Haven't skied in 2 years due to my last injury. My knee slides out and even though it's braced I don't trust it.
I could go ski groomers only but riding sled at 100mph is way more fun than that!!!

Agree about the motorcycle thing.
I don't ride sport bikes anymore due to a near death experience on my ZX11

billyymc wrote

campgottagopee wrote

Maybe get off the blue squares dude

Funny guy. How much did you ski this year? Missed some good runs on Oly and Labyrinth  Olympian is labelled experts only, so I must be an expert skier.

IMO riding my motorcycle is more dangerous because of the potential consequences of any car/bike encounter. I reduce that danger by mitigating the risk with behaviors like choosing when and where I ride. Based on statistics my fear could be irrational, but like your ski buds who have been hurt I've known enough people who were severely injured or killed on the road to develop an irrational, emotion based position.

I can't believe I can't convince the internet I'm right and it's wrong. I hate the internet.

You have lost on internets today. Come back for tomorrow’s helmet discussion. :D

raisingarizona wrote

You have lost on internets today. Come back for tomorrow’s helmet discussion. :D

"The only winning move is not to play" - WOPR

Skiing has risks for sure.  Statistics can used to prove both sides of an argument.

If I worked for an insurance company that was looking to underright two different ski areas all you would need to do is go observe an average Saturday at each.  To do so I would find good skier and ideally a professional either an experienced instructor or patroller to observe with an actuary.   Let’s say both are in the same region within 30 miles of each other.  

One has 30 min lift lines despite multiple high speed quads or 6 packs, packed trail density that resemble driving on the LIE in rush hour,  a big rep for bars and nightlife in the local area, and opens thier bar before lifts run and the bar is packed in the morning.  The other is a off the beaten path, only a few old and slow lifts and short lift lines, a family vibe and a bar that doesn’t get busy until skiing is done for the day.  The difference in the experience and ability of the customers is also considerably different between the two.  

The risk of skiing at a death trap that is Hunter compared to Platty is undeniable.  If I was an insurance company there is no way I’d insure Hunter.  Just by looking you can see it’s risk is infinitely higher than Platty.  Unfortunately Laz likely pays higher rates than he should because of his proximity to Hunter as a comparable price is applied in the insurance biz.

Hunter could do many things though to lower risks to make things safer such as dont  open its bar until the afternoon, limit lift ticket sales to safe numbers ( use the Vail model and raise prices to limit demand to what they can safely supply) have a better layout with less intersections etc.  Like I said before Hunter is a tort lawyers wet dream.

Z makes some legit points here.

Z wrote

Hunter could do many things though to lower risks to make things safer such as dont  open its bar until the afternoon,

I wonder if part of an investigation into a skier death includes a blood tox analysis. Anyone know?

When you think about it alcohol probably plays a role in many of the types of deaths we've been debating here - automobile accidents, gunshot, and maybe skiing as well.

And there you see that perhaps the real danger in much of this could be an added risk factor like alcohol that isn't part of the primary activity, and we're all arguing about the wrong risk.

Regardless of the shenanigans that Great Abyss and I got up to yesterday, the concept of how we individually perceive, process, and mitigate risk may be more interesting.

Here's a real time example that just happened. I was planning to commute to work by bike today. It's a 15.5 mile ride (one way). I just did a last minute check on the weather and there is a wind advisory for this afternoon with sustained winds in the 20's possibly and gusts of 40-50.

So I made the decision not to ride. Not because riding in the wind is an issue (it would be behind or at my right flank on the right home) but because if I get hit by a gust that strong while I"m riding 20+ mph on the shoulder of a road where cars are passing me at 55-65 mph I'm concerned for my safety.

I'm sitting here conflicted because I want to ride, and I feel like I'm copping out and being lazy. I feel like my normal level of risk riding my commute route is acceptable, even given the high consequences of getting hit by a car. This little but of added risk put me into the range where for me it's unacceptable.

What do you say? I think it's an emotional decision since I have no data on wind gusts contributing to cycling accidents. Is it rational or irrational?

I think the worst part is now I have to go to the gym tonight

louie.mirags wrote

People fall out of tree stands when not using safety equipment properly, if at all.

My friend's father, the most knowledgeable and experienced CNY hunter you can imagine, was on a hunting trip in southern Illinois. He lost his footing while leaving a tree stand, his wedding ring got stuck in the tree, and he lost his finger. His litigation against the tree is currently moving through the courts there.

bumps wrote

His litigation against the tree is currently moving through the courts there.

The Judicial Branch.

bumps wrote

louie.mirags wrote

People fall out of tree stands when not using safety equipment properly, if at all.

My friend's father, the most knowledgeable and experienced CNY hunter you can imagine, was on a hunting trip in southern Illinois. He lost his footing while leaving a tree stand, his wedding ring got stuck in the tree, and he lost his finger. His litigation against the tree is currently moving through the courts there.

Many moons ago our local parks used metal nets for their b ball hoops. Same thing happened to a guy while going up for a rebound. His ring got stuck in the net.

degloving injuries are some of the most gruesome out there..

Decision making is not something we actively do most of the time.  I applaud your choice, and perhaps you avoided the heuristic traps of familiarity and commitment this morning.  The study of heuristics in psychology is fascinating, and how they apply to skiing equally so.  Here is one highly regarded study on how heuristic traps contribute to avalanche fatalities.  Not only a good read, but it involves a bunch of math and science so you and Abyss should enjoy!

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_McCammon/publication/228681500_Evidence_of_heuristic_traps_in_recreational_avalanche_accident/links/02e7e5205c1b957687000000/Evidence-of-heuristic-traps-in-recreational-avalanche-accident.pdf

JTG4eva! wrote

Decision making is not something we actively do most of the time.  I applaud your choice, and perhaps you avoided the heuristic traps of familiarity and commitment this morning.  The study of heuristics in psychology is fascinating, and how they apply to skiing equally so.  Here is one highly regarded study on how heuristic traps contribute to avalanche fatalities.  Not only a good read, but it involves a bunch of math and science so you and Abyss should enjoy!

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian_McCammon/publication/228681500_Evidence_of_heuristic_traps_in_recreational_avalanche_accident/links/02e7e5205c1b957687000000/Evidence-of-heuristic-traps-in-recreational-avalanche-accident.pdf

To me that's one of the biggest issues out there..  Just because ....  Doesn't mean...

TheGreatAbyss wrote

Shouldn't the length of time skiing be the amount of time with either a) skis moving or b) on an incline?  I.e. not on the lift or in a lift line?  That dramatically reduces the amount of time actually "skiing."

I'm only 75% confident of what I'm saying.  I wish I knew more about stats.  To me there's a 50% chance you die skiing - or doing anything.  Either you come home or you assume room temperature.