 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@philwig, are you the driver?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@philwig, too true and we know (collectively) just how crap humans are at assessing and managing risk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Although the risk of death whilst skiing is extremely small I am not aware of any other activity/pastime with as many deaths per year. Does anyone know of one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@welshskier, being in a car?
Breathing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@under a new name, breathing may be a pastime for you but I would count it as more important. And being in a car doesn't count as a pastime/activity for many, I suggest. Cycling is a bit different and I'm sensitive to that at the moment as mrs ws fell off her bike (again!) 6 weeks ago and damaged her back, causing her a lot of pain and a canceled holiday for us. She did this the day after I returned from a great week at Serre Chevalier with no injuries at all! Just goes to show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@welshskier, I wonder what you mean by as many deaths per year. How Many European ski resort deaths? I woudl hazard a guess that most of them get reported on this site. I suspect the number remains low and I suspect rather more people drop dead on golf courses, hill walking and many many other activities.
Ski related mortality is very low indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@welshskier, relative risks were posted further up the thread with skiing being really not very risky at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
This follows from the question raised a bit back as to why is ski insurance more expensive than hiking, cycling or climbing insurance
|
it seems from comments above that insurance for lift-served downhill MTB in the Alps is very expensive. Makes sense - just looking at it, it looks far more dangerous to me than skiing on the same slopes in winter. Also, the young downhill MTB-ers tend to be tough, brave and a touch foolhardy. Their numbers are not leavened by the Archetypical Old Punters who potter, mainly fairly safely, round the ski pistes. |
I'm not sure that either "ski insurance more expensive than hiking, cycling or climbing insurance" or "insurance for lift-served downhill MTB in the Alps is very expensive" are in fact true. Some quotes from Snowcard for 7 days in Europe, no baggage cover etc. In ascending order.
Beach holiday £21
Horse riding £25
Hill walking (no snow or ice) £25
Bike touring £26
Sports climbing £26
Surfing and sailing £27
Piste including patrolled ungroomed £32
MTB on trails including lift-served £33
Rock climbing including multi-pitch £33
Kite surfing £43
Off-piste £49
MTB off trail £53
Alpinism and/or ice climbing £55
To look at it another way, £21 covers administration, cancellation and "being middle aged for a week" risk and the extra premiums for activity-related risks are:
Horse riding £4
Hill walking (no snow or ice) £4
Bike touring £5
Sports climbing £5
Surfing and sailing £6
Piste including patrolled ungroomed £11
MTB on trails including lift-served £12
Rock climbing including multi-pitch £12
Kite surfing £22
Off-piste £28
MTB off trail £32
Alpinism and/or ice climbing £34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dogwatch, interesting descriptions. What's on trail vs off trail MTB? The downhillers I know, are (I think) all on trails, but any sport where you think a full neck brace and body armour is necessary is going to be well up the I might hurt myself scale.
Wheras the off trail, x-country routes are definitely more "pedestrian" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
MTB tracks and trails:mountain bike riding on off road tracks or trails – e.g. unmade up roads, paths, bridleways etc. - is the £33 line.
versus
MTB downhiller: non competitive off road mountain bike riding – e.g. ski resort runs where riding is not on established tracks or paths. - is the £53 line
I think the wording of the first covers lift-served downhill on established tracks.
http://www.snowcard.co.uk/activities-single.php
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| T Bar wrote: |
| How Many European ski resort deaths? I woudl hazard a guess that most of them get reported on this site. |
I bet they don't. About 15 per year in France excluding heart attacks, not all of them get reported even in the French press. 150,000 accidents requiring medical intervention. About 45 million skier days. That's a death rate of 0.0000003/skier day and an accident rate of 0.0033 / skier day. Or to look at things another way, a 0.001% risk of dying if you are involved in an accident. (figures from SNOSM and Medicine de Montagnes, they are roughly similar in Switzerland)
Ski touring is probably 100 times more deadly per skier day, but there are no accurate figures (30 deaths per year in avalanches and falls for 1 million skier days - my figures, French mountains). There are probably less accidents than piste skiing because the majority of ski tours are on low exposure routes, skiers are better and generally skiing slower than on piste. A recent study said you had an 8% risk of dying if involved in an accident requiring outside medical assistance when ski touring[1]!
The death rate ski touring is skewed by a small minority skiing difficult routes in sketchy conditions. For the majority of skiers it is probably a pretty safe activity.
[1]The figure is not comparible with the one for resort skiing because some injured ski tourers consult doctors / hospitals having descended themselves, the real figure is probably around 1 to 2%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who has had to sit out this season (first one in 30 years) due to health issues, I'd like to reverse the question, how dangerous is it not to ski? Clearly a little flippant, but a few years ago following an injury I was told (in error) by a Doctor that I would not be able to ski again - that had a significant effect on my well being at the time. I once worked out via the back of a ski pass calculation and in a particularly bad year that the chances of dying skiing off piste on any given day are roughly twice that of dying otherwise and of course both hugely greater than winning the lottery. Clearly there are many factors involved here, not least one's own propensity for exposure to existential risk. However, given present circumstances I'd gladly swap the risks of being recumbent on a couch to skiing deep snow at 4/5. In general such risks are minimal in the whole scheme of things and can be reduced but never eliminated by the application of common sense as described in such worthy documents as the FIS and Highway Codes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Ski lots wrote: |
| ...I'd like to reverse the question, how dangerous is it not to ski? ... |
That's an extremely important insight.
Everyone knows that cycling is dangerous. Over a lifetime, it might even lead to the death of 1% of active lifelong participants. But that risk is trivial compared with the elevated risk of heart disease faced by couch potatoes: the pastime of indolence prematurely kills maybe 40% of its adherents.
Statistically, every hour spent on your bike or skiing will increase your life expectancy, despite the inherent risk of the sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@dogwatch, except that at least round the Chamonix valley, the seriously dangerous downhilling is on prepared tracks with prepared jumps, drops, spikes, garrotting wires, etc. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Everyone knows that cycling is dangerous. Over a lifetime, it might even lead to the death of 1% of active lifelong participants. But that risk is trivial compared with the elevated risk of heart disease faced by couch potatoes: the pastime of indolence prematurely kills maybe 40% of its adherents.
|
An interesting point; perhaps the elevated risk to coronary disease heart caused by eating excessive amounts of cheese on skiing holidays ought to be factored in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Everyone knows that cycling is dangerous. Over a lifetime, it might even lead to the death of 1% of active lifelong participants. But that risk is trivial compared with the elevated risk of heart disease faced by couch potatoes: the pastime of indolence prematurely kills maybe 40% of its adherents.
Statistically, every hour spent on your bike or skiing will increase your life expectancy, despite the inherent risk of the sport.
|
That assumes that your baseline risk is that of the indolent individual if you do an active but less dangerous sport cycling may increase your risk if as seems likely exercise does not increase longevity the more you do it but has a maximal effect after fairly moderate levels of exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I realize that you have to read the "everyone knows" line there in context: the statement is actually pointing out that what "everyone knows" may be wrong. It is.
A more evidenced based approach to that is for example http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts, which backs up numbers I've seen elsewhere. Spiegelhalter knows his numbers.
Note the relative risks of walking to work in a city versus cycling. Perhaps the major threat in both cases is the same bad drivers, but you're exposed to them for less time if you're cycling.
In Cambridge cyclists who ignore their own safety (helmets hanging off handlebars, no lights, no signals, no road traffic law observance) appear to be in the majority. Whilst they're a source of danger to others, they probably also feature higher than responsible people in the accident statistics. Reckless behaviour is optional/ you can control some risks at least. You could say the same about pedestrians though - gormless texting people are presumably at higher risk than others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
that micromorts link reminds me that horse-riding is more dangerous than taking Ecstasy. But possibly more dangerous still, at least to the career path, is being the government adviser who says so..... 
But these big, generalized, answers mean nothing anyway. There are many different kinds of skiers and, as philwig points out, many different kinds of cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@johnE, define please "excessive cheese"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@philwig,
| Quote: |
In Cambridge cyclists who ignore their own safety (helmets hanging off handlebars, no lights, no signals, no road traffic law observance) appear to be in the majority.
|
They are a bloody nightmare in Oxford as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's important to bear in mind that insurance charges often relate directly to what they are likely to be charged for, thus an accident on a beach or in a town is unlikely to require helicopter evacuation or long stays in hospital, whereas an accident on the side of a mountain is far more likely to involve a helicopter flight and more complicated and longer hospital time, so premiums are charged not just according to risk but also to likely costs involved, this is also why US ski holidays cost far more to insure than European ones where medical charges even in private hospitals are significantly cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
that micromorts link reminds me that horse-riding is more dangerous than taking Ecstasy. But possibly more dangerous still, at least to the career path, is being the government adviser who says so.....
|
What about horse riding on ecstasy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@dogwatch, who's on ecstasy, the horse or rider?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| ... possibly more dangerous still, at least to the career path, is being the government adviser who says so..... |
Indeed. Evidence-based thinkers aren't common in government - the breakdown of MPs by education is telling on this (as well as a few other things):
http://www.parliamentaryrecord.com/content/statAnalysis/by-education.aspx
So we're probably lucky that they didn't actually burn the chap trying to tell them the truth about Ecstasy. A truth their own children already know and accept I would guess. I digress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
^
There are plenty of evidence-based thinkers in government. However the evidence they are most interested in are opinion polls and focus groups. Drug de-criminalisation is not a vote-winner.
You could take a view that we get the politicians we deserve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Cycling in cities is one area where assuming that the "reckless" ones are more likely to suffer injury can fall down. Evidence tends to point to the cautious riders making up the lion's share of casualties, particularly in the increasingly common cyclist - tipper lorry incident. The "aggressive" or "reckless" cyclist tends to position themselves well ahead of these beast, whilst more "cautious" and "law abiding" cyclists tend to sit patiently in the ASL boxes and cycle lanes - just exactly in lorries' blind spots - making them much more likely to end up under the wheels.
So your perception of "recklessness" is possibly misguided. If the system itself is dangerous (ie the appallingly designed city traffic infrastructure) then putting yourself outside that system (ie behaving "recklessly") maybe a safe way to deal with it. That said I doubt many cycling in that style have made that as a conscious decision
A correlation to skiing may be going off piste into what may be a considered a more risky area as the risks in the less risky area are being inflated by the number of skiers in that area. I'll admit that's a rubbish anaology those as you could just decide not to ski, whereas deciding not to go to work as the traffic's "a bit dicey" is harder to justify. But as said.... not doing an activity can be dangerous. Seomone I know took their own life last year and I think being told that he wouldn't be able to ride his bike (for medical reasons) was a factor.
It's always about relative risks.. not absolute risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Jon_b, I think you'll find that "reckless" means "without regard to the consequences". That's precisely my usage.
You're talking about something different, almost the opposite. I'm almost entirely outside the "traffic infrastructure" myself. I think that's very off topic though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
The "aggressive" or "reckless" cyclist tends to position themselves well ahead of these beast, whilst more "cautious" and "law abiding" cyclists tend to sit patiently in the ASL boxes and cycle lanes - just exactly in lorries' blind spots - making them much more likely to end up under the wheels.
|
I don't really agree with your nomenclature here. There is nothing reckless about taking a visible position in the centre of a lane.
And I don't think sitting patiently in ASLs puts you at risk (999 times out of 1000 anyway).
What is reckless is squeezing up the inside of heavy trucks when you are not sure you can get past and into a safe position before they start moving. Even more so if they could possibly be turning left. A lot of the time the safest course is to stay BEHIND the truck in the middle of the lane rather than feel you have to squeeze to the front. If in doubt you are better doing this than fighting your way to the front.
Assertive and confident are not the same as aggressive and reckless.
As an aside - although I don't think it is necessarily "reckless" to break the rules of the road, in practice, in my 10 years of cycle commuting the number of times I have felt I needed to break the rules of the road to stay safe has been a handful. A lot of the time people use that as an excuse to doing something they want to do anyway IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I think skiing's quite dangerous. It's terrible for my liver! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Cycling in heavy traffic isn't really a pastime it's more probably called going to work. I guess the statistic are what tells the story. Insurance actuaries base premiums on how often they've had claims in the past, and how much those claims have cost. They want to take more money in premiums than they pay out in claims. They are not really so much looking at the future as basing the future on the past. That's a bit different to how dangerous a sport is. Cyclists in the UK are probably uninsured because their medical treatment will be free. So we can't really compare them through insurance premiums. Deaths due to cycling also include travelling to and from work, and road cycling. That's different to skiing on specialised pistes. They are sharing the road with big cars and lorries and are often in conflict with them. MTBing (is that a word?) would be a better comparison but there's still the level of reporting. Because they are not insured, MTBers are probably less likely to report an accident. And if they do go to hospital how will it be recorded? So it's going to be hard to compare skiing to anything. It's certainly beyond compare as far as I'm concerned 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Apologies - I definitely haven't made my point clear! I really didn't want to start a discussion on cycle safety, but I am aware that what many cyclists regard as assertive and confident (myself included) other will regard as "reckless" and "aggressive" - hence my use of quotes. It was this disparity of the perception of risks that I sensed in some of the discussion and was hoping to point out and I thought had some relevance here in terms of why individuals decide to behave in what my appear (to the uninitiated) to be risky ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Road cycling, MTBing, on-piste skiing and off-piste skiing are all so much fun that I'd do them whatever the risk.
Drive to work instead of cycle? I'd rather take my chances and die under the wheels of a left-turning pickup truck. At least I'd finish my days having fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| henzerani wrote: |
| Cyclists in the UK are probably uninsured because their medical treatment will be free. |
Typically covered by household insurance actually, bike & 3rd party. Membership of British Cycling includes 3rd person cover, the same can be bought elsewhere. Granted 3rd party is not a legal requirements but I for one would not be comfortable cycling regularly on the road without it. I suspect most cyclist with high-value bikes insure them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@pam w,
| Quote: |
The Lib Dems aren't too bad on drugs
|
Even the conservatives aren't too bad if you drop enough acid though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@T Bar, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dogwatch wrote: |
| ... Typically covered by household insurance actually, bike & 3rd party. Membership of British Cycling includes 3rd person cover, the same can be bought elsewhere. Granted 3rd party is not a legal requirements but I for one would not be comfortable cycling regularly on the road without it. I suspect most cyclist with high-value bikes insure them. |
I'm not sure that's generally so, in my experience:
- You can add "bike cover" to household policies, but it's not standard.
At least not on the last three or four house contents insurers I have used (have to change it every year, you know how it works) .
- If you have a reasonably high value bike, the premiums are a significant fraction of the machine's value, especially as bike depreciation is very steep.
I self insure my bikes. A year ago one of them was stolen from inside my office by a burglar. I got it back (thieves are stupid, the internet is my territory), and now it's fastened here with a chain which weighs half the weight of the bike and which cost about twice what the scumbag sold the bike for.
My house insurance does provide third-party liability insurance. However the point about medical expenses is relevant in the UK - you can't issue proceedings to recover costs you won't reasonably incur, and the criminal law would take care of any punitive stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
