 Poster: A snowHead
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
experts tend to have much higher exposure - they just spend a lot more days in avalanche terrain than normal people.
|
That's true. However, you also need to consider that experts don't always practice what they preach! I'm sure plenty of guides who died in avalanches were skiing stuff they wouldn't ever have taken clients on. |
This guy is an expert, won the Verbier Xtreme, and seemingly sets off an avalanche every second time he goes skiing. Some people are wildly reckless and think they have the skills to deal with / get out of any situation
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4OVUeAosm4/?igsh=MXBhbWR5d250empoNg==
90% of avalanches are set off by the first person to ski the slope. The reality is that for most recreational skiers they will never be first to easily accessible slopes as the locals will get their first. So the chance of getting caught in an avalanche is very small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
This guy is an expert
|
When did he start snowboarding?! His bec straight-line is one of the most iconic fwt runs ever!
He's not the only one, plenty of Nikolai Schirmers out there pushing the limits way past what most people would consider acceptable. I guess at least they make a living off it. Not like the the have-a-go hero scandi seasonnaires. What was it that one that died in an avalanche had told his friends "the best snow is level 4 days" 
Then you have the completely stupid. Like the guys that went into a closed area of lake Louise signed "closed due to avalanche danger".
| Quote: |
So the chance of getting caught in an avalanche is very small.
|
I'm sure there are cases out there when the group did everything right and got caught out on something that 99% wouldn't have picked up on either. But the vast majority of avalanche reports clear mistakes were made that you have to think anyone with even a basic understanding would have picked up on.
Only go out on days when the avalanche danger is low. Have equipment and know how to use it. Ski slopes with tracks (to be fair as said above the idea that you are going to be skiing completely untracked slopes is likely wishful thinking for most anyway). Ski one at a time. Avoid very high consequence terrain with terrain traps. Do that and you probably have a pretty miniscule risk already without really having any understanding of snow science or formal training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| davidof wrote: |
| Tom_Ski wrote: |
| Being completely untrained and thus pretty ignorant of avi safety protocols and ratings, I’m not sure how to answer your question. Based on what little I do understand, I would think that 1 or 2 would be acceptable to those wishing to minimize risk and still enjoy back country skiing. |
Ok, so low in terms of what the skier in the street understands it to mean.
In France 8% of fatal avalanche incidents occur at risk 2, the figure is 29% in Switzerland as the Swiss are more reluctant to move to risk 3 for administrative reasons.
These are the full French and Swiss figures but for 1996-2006, things may have evolved somewhat as countries try to harmonize their risk assessment. I was a bit shocked to hear a well known YouTuber and freerider say that he thought the avalanche risk was "Only 3" the other day after he triggered an avalanche (it was actually 4).
1: 0%, 3%
2: 8%, 29%
3: 49%, 54%
4: 38%, 12%
5: 5%, 1%
As others have pointed out above, we are talking about 20 or so fatalities per year in France. (currently 12 in CH) so your chance of getting killed is not high
Rather than using the avalanche risk, try the Risk Reduction Method, it takes more factors into account
https://www.bergfreunde.eu/munter-reduction-method-calculator/
Say you wanted to ski today off piste in Val d'Isere
Avalanche Risk is 2, you are going to ski mellow slopes (<35 degrees) but on N sectors, you are sticking to regularly skied off piste and you are a small group. Risk is 0.3. That's a Go! (with the usual precautions).
Using this method will force you to take a look at the avalanche bulletin and read the detail.
Oh and your best chance of survival is to have an airbag |
These numbers aren’t that meaningful without including the number of backcountry skiers and hours (or runs?) that were skied. If 20 people died, but that was out of only 50 who were skiing backcountry, it would be pretty bad odds. I’ve read some research that references “micromorts” to get at a metric that can be used to make an apples to apples comparison of risk across different types of activities.
And fwiw, re airbags, the skier who died in Oregon (see article I posted) was wearing one and it deployed. I wonder if you’d be better off not wearing one - because it might reduce the temptation to take any additional risk by avoiding the “oh, I’ll be ok. I’m wearing my airbag so if anything bad does happen I should be ok” syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
And fwiw, re airbags, the skier who died in Oregon (see article I posted) was wearing one and it deployed. I wonder if you’d be better off not wearing one - because it might reduce the temptation to take any additional risk by avoiding the “oh, I’ll be ok. I’m wearing my airbag so if anything bad does happen I should be ok” syndrome.
|
There definitely has been a suggestion that wearing an airbag increases likelihood of taking risks. I'm not sure there's any good evidence proving it, but definitely something to consider. I'd guess gopros have led to more risk taking behaviour though, at least the airbag has some potential to help!
You also have to consider that wearing an airbag alone isn't helpful. You have to trigger it. Which in some cases the victims haven't managed to do.
Also terrain matters. No good staying afloat if that just means hitting rocks/trees or going off a cliff all of which can still kill you. As morbid as it sounds though I'd rather hit a tree and have it over with quickly than die buried under an avalanche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
There definitely has been a suggestion that wearing an airbag increases likelihood of taking risks. I'm not sure there's any good evidence proving it, but definitely something to consider. I'd guess gopros have led to more risk taking behaviour though, at least the airbag has some potential to help!
You also have to consider that wearing an airbag alone isn't helpful. You have to trigger it. Which in some cases the victims haven't managed to do.
Also terrain matters. No good staying afloat if that just means hitting rocks/trees or going off a cliff all of which can still kill you. As morbid as it sounds though I'd rather hit a tree and have it over with quickly than die buried under an avalanche. |
There has been research into risk taking behavior and perceived level of safety: https://news.clemson.edu/the-safer-you-feel-the-less-safely-you-might-behave/ They talk about risk homeostasis and risk compensation in this article.
You have to self deploy them?? Wow - I guess that makes sense, otherwise they’d be going off when you simply fall versus when you’re caught in an avalanche. Surprised because the ones that a lot of motorcyclists now wear have electronic motion detectors that will auto deploy them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Tom_Ski, yes there is general research into the concept, but nothing specific to air bags I don't think.
The fact someone has gone out and bought an airbag may suggest they are taking safety more seriously than those choosing not to. To give a real world example I suspect those not wearing a seatbelt in the car are likely to be more reckless drivers than those choosing to wear it, regardless of it making them feel safer.
Even if you could prove airbags do cause more risk taking, you would then have to then show this outweighs the potential positives. (Good luck to anyone trying to do that analysis!).
I think a lot of it is individual. Some people just take more risks and some are more conservative. Perhaps the airbag can shift some slightly towards more risk taking. But I can't say I know anyone who has been dramatically transformed from conservative to risk taker with getting an airbag.
Yes manual trigger. Like you say I don't know how you could design anything that could detect between a fall and an avalanche. A little easier on a motorbike as a crash is a crash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ