 Poster: A snowHead
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| I don't dispute the numbers, I'm just not sure sure they are particularly helpful. They perpetuate the "well you'd have to be unlucky to die in an avalanche so don't worry about minimising risks" and "people that die in avalanches are just unlucky" ideas. |
I guess it depends on what angle you look at probabilities and luck. One could make multiple really bad decisions and survive, or one could make multiple bad decisions and be caught. The bad decisions have increased the probability but that doesn't mean that luck isn't a factor. As you say, risk on a 4/5 day is far higher, but there will still be people who take that risk and survive, same as you can still get caught in a 1/5 day.
I don't know if the analogy really fits but I've been watching a Youtube series on card counting. The counters use their ability/skill to turn the odds in their favour and turn a profit, but ultimately the game still relies on luck no matter how well they're playing the game. Obviously the probabilities/luck involved in Blackjack are completely different to skiing avi terrain, as skiers we are able to use knowledge and take many more precautions to improve our odds....but I'm not sure the risk is ever completely gone (y'know, other than when there's no snow or you're on flat ground etc. etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@pam w, no. I'm suggesting that both those things are common misconceptions that are not particularly helpful.
If you know the risk of something killing you is 1/50,000 you probably wouldn't think twice about doing it. But that stat is not really how avalanche risk works. There are people who will only go out on low risk days and mitigate all the obvious risks, who probably reduce their chance to 1/1,000,000+. Then there are others going out on high risk days, skiing dangerous slopes, who's risk may be 1/100.
The chance of dying in a car crash is pretty low. So why wear a seatbelt? If someone dies in a car crash because they were speeding, driving recklessly, and not wearing a seatbelt, are they just unlucky?
There is a huge amount of science, forecasting, and technology at our disposal to massively mitigate risks. Plenty of avalanche deaths were not simply "unlucky", but could have been prevented by better decision making. This isn't to blame or point fault, Humans are fallible. It's just saying it's not all about "luck", it's about shifting the odds in your favour and not making mistakes that can cost you your life.
Once you actually start educating yourself on avalanche safety you realise they are not particularly random. In fact they are very predictable. So I find using the word "luck" problematic.
If you can start showing me examples of where people did everything right, made no wrong decisions and still got caught I'd be willing to change my opinion. But in my experience the vast majority of avy deaths red flags were missed and mistakes were made (of course much easier to see in hindsight).
"Luck" just suggests too little control imo. If I'm reading risk is 1/50,000 and didnt know better, I'd probably agree - why bother educating myself I'd just have to be really unlucky to die. Which I think is a terrible suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| ... If you can start showing me examples of where people did everything right, made no wrong decisions and still got caught I'd be willing to change my opinion. But in my experience the vast majority of avy deaths red flags were missed and mistakes were made (of course much easier to see in hindsight). ... |
I have given up multiple sports precisely because the risks were not amenable to careful management.
If I thought I was at risk of randomly riding off-piste without gear or buddies, I'd be doing other sports.
Hindsight... I don't agree with the "oh, well it's easy for you to say in hindsight that they should have been using transceivers/ shovel packs" concept.
To me, those things are well known in advance, by everyone. It's not something you work out after the fact: people deliberately ignore it, and mostly they get away with it.
If you're anti-mask, it's only with hindsight that you understand why surgeons wear masks, but that's not hindsight issue at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
The chance of dying in a car crash is pretty low. So why wear a seatbelt? If someone dies in a car crash because they were speeding, driving recklessly, and not wearing a seatbelt, are they just unlucky?
|
No, but if they drive like an idiot with drink or drugs inside them, without a seatbelt, and survive unscathed, were they lucky?
And if that drugged up idiot mounts a pavement and kills a child in a pushchair, was that child and his family unlucky?
Of course you can stack the odds to depend less on luck - good luck or bad. But you can't, as @SnoodyMcFlude says, eliminate luck altogether. There are, of course, some people who believe in Providence (like Oliver Cromwell). But most of us don't, and we factor luck into our every day, often unconscious, risk assessment. We don't demand to eliminate all risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| phil_w wrote: |
I have given up multiple sports precisely because the risks were not amenable to careful management.
|
oooh you tease... Come on then I'll bite. My guesses:
1. Darts
2. Pub-pool
3. Ballet
Am I right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@red 27, if you can do it to 90% of your ability with a pint in your hand, it ain't a sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And anyone who thinks ballet is without significant risks doesn't know much about it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Yes. Also foolish. I like watching Schirmer's videos but he a case study in how to fall into heuristic traps. Actually I think he just doesn't care enough. I've said it before - it's really sad - but I think he will die skiing. In several of his vids his partners tell him to back off or that they are going to back off and he doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very lucky . . .they were buzzing after 'getting away with it twice' . . . the folly of youth
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
The chance of dying in a car crash is pretty low. So why wear a seatbelt? If someone dies in a car crash because they were speeding, driving recklessly, and not wearing a seatbelt, are they just unlucky?
|
No, but if they drive like an idiot with drink or drugs inside them, without a seatbelt, and survive unscathed, were they lucky?
And if that drugged up idiot mounts a pavement and kills a child in a pushchair, was that child and his family unlucky?
Of course you can stack the odds to depend less on luck - good luck or bad. But you can't, as @SnoodyMcFlude says, eliminate luck altogether. There are, of course, some people who believe in Providence (like Oliver Cromwell). But most of us don't, and we factor luck into our every day, often unconscious, risk assessment. We don't demand to eliminate all risk. |
I agree with all of that but your early commentary on risk sounded much more fatalistic and questioning of the value of risk management approaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@SnoodyMcFlude,
| Quote: |
but I'm not sure the risk is ever completely gone (y'know, other than when there's no snow or you're on flat ground etc. etc.)
|
If you stay on ground below 25 degrees which is not overlooked by steeper terrain then you are vanishingly unlikely to get avalanched. It's not as bad as you suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
No, but if they drive like an idiot with drink or drugs inside them, without a seatbelt, and survive unscathed, were they lucky?
And if that drugged up idiot mounts a pavement and kills a child in a pushchair, was that child and his family unlucky?
|
But one the person has complete control over, the other is an almost completely random act done to them.
I think that's my issue with using the word "luck", it makes it sound like just random chance. But avalanches are far from random, as I said before they are actually fairly predictable. I feel like this is something that you are vastly underestimating. But unless you've done some decent training and/or got into the snow science books its maybe unfair to expect you to fully comprehend this.
If you want you can pretty much reduce your odds to zero (25 degree slopes with no overhead hazard). Most of us have slightly more risk tolerance and are happy reducing our odds to near zero using the plethora of tools and tech at our disposal to reduce risk.
Like I said before, show me the avy reports of these hypothetical "unlucky" people, that mitigated all the the risks missed no obvious red flags and still died in avalanches. I just don't think they exist. The people getting caught tend to be the Nikolai Schirmers who seemingly have very high risk tolerance and/or don't understand or completely ignore numerous red flags (I say this as someone who loves his videos, but hes completely reckless).
I will give you that "good luck" probably accounts for the likes of Nikolai not having had a serious accident. But I don't think "bad luck" really accounts for many deaths. Most could have been avoided with better decision making.
@phil_w, when I say easier in hindsight I mean we can often spot things that may have been easier to miss/ignore on the day. If someone needs hindsight to know going off-piste without avy equipment is a mistake they shouldn't be there! Some things are just reckless, and need no detailed analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
There seems to be a bit of loose talk on here confusing zero risk (which doesn’t exist in the literal sense) and reducing to an acceptable risk, which is totally achievable.
Someone even talked about zero risk using Munter, which makes no sense. Munter is a risk reduction technique and the intention is to reduce the risk of skiing a slope to the equivalent of walking on a mountain trail in the summer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Yes.
Really fascinating video. Decision making seemed compromised by:
- early season stoke
- Good snow in lower section driving "stoke"
- reluctance to recognize increased risk due to the aspect driven changes in the snow
- post slide embarrassment leads to laughing it off?
with a dose of heuristic traps:
- new young camera man points out the full width crack, others don't give his warning the equivalent weight they would each others comments, camera man seems not to push it.
I really like his vids and I think it is good to put this out into the wild as hopefully it will highlight thepoor decision making. Fell sorry for the camera dude though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
^ Nicholas Schirmer : good skier but clearly an absolute bombscare. Amazed he is still alive (only by chance rather than learning from his previous well documented errors).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
