 Poster: A snowHead
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
| I'm just not sure what conclusion your are coming to or what point you are trying to make. Can you spell it out for me, are you saying that transceivers are not worth the cost? Do you have a monetary value on your and your friends lives that allows you to make this calculation? |
That question is irrelevant.
Of course my life is worth £200. £200 is of low materiality in the context of a week's skiing; in the context of a a few weeks' skiing it's irrelevant.
The question is "Given the level of risk, and the extent to which the risk is mitigated through purchase of a beacon, is the whole beacon malarkey worth bothering with in the first place?"
The link to the paper above, combined with the '7' statistic seems to suggest that the likely impact on a skier's longevity is minimal. We accept that skiing is a relatively high-risk sport; we accept that skiing off piste brings with it a higher level of risk. Yet once the research shows that driving a car is more dangerous than off-piste skiing it suggests that skiing is not a relatively high-risk sport at all - unless compared with tiddlywinks.
It's interesting that nobody has come on this thread to say 'a beacon saved my life', nor even 'I used a beacon to dig out a friend' - nor even 'A friend of mine's life was saved through having a beacon.' |
My question about the monetary value was an attempt at reframing your statement that "we have to work out whether the amount of effort put into saving these lives is disproportionate". How do you measure this effort? I was using cost of using a beacon, but I agree it is bordering on the obscene to actually put monetary values on lives. In order to come to a conclusion about the value of a beacon then you need some measurement, no?
You seem to conclude that because off piste skiing is safer than driving then the effort of using a beacon is indeed disproportionate to the risk, but I just don't see how you come to that conclusion. If that's your own personal measure then fine, but it doesn't work for me. Roads are not particularly safe and I don't view something that is safer than road travel as "safe" per se. Why is road safety the benchmark by which you judge risk, and why should not seek to mitigate risk when skiing just because it is safer than road travel?
The fact the no one on this forum has volunteered first hand experience of a real life burial is completely irrelevant, we have reliable figures we don't need anecdotal evidence to work out the odds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| meh wrote: |
| James the Last, yet the organisation that collated the data completely disagrees with your conclusion. |
Really?? The conclusion of the document is that they concluded that off-piste skiing is safer than driving. |
You need to be rather more careful with statistics for a start as they say no such thing. The SLF recommend everyone skiing off-piste carries a shovel, probe and transceiver as well as getting training in how to make safe decisions. You need to read a little wider than one paper.
| Quote: |
| What brought me to this thread in the first place was the suggestion (which has been in several threads recently) that on-piste skiers should always carry them. A ridiculous distortion of any sensible risk evaluation. This made me wonder the extent to which the use of a beacon off piste impacts on the risks experienced when skiing. Whilst it seems that there is an identifiable reduction in the death rate through carrying beacons, the chances of being caught in a slide are small, and it only improves your chance of |
Yup no one took them seriously because its a daft idea that everyone skiing on piste should carry a beacon and people explained why. Plus yes everyone is fully aware that beacons are only useful in the event of being in a slide and its better to avoid that. So again what on earth is your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
James the Last, whether it (wearing beeper) is worth it (the probably minimal reduction in risk overall- but significant reduction in risk in th eunlikely event you are buried) all depends (assuming the same agreed facts re utility of a transceiver if buried - quite a lot really and likelihood of being buried in the first place- not that much- unless you are)on:
1. Your attitude to risk in the first place (ie do you do many many more risky things)
2. How much money you have (ie is £70-200 a big deal)
3. How often you ski off piste and to an extent the terrain you ski
For me it is pretty simple- I have a couple of transceivers and take them with me (also shovels and probes etc). £200 is not a big deal-and I don't do all the (very much more) risky things I used to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
What is the likelihood of being killed on the slopes? http://www.ski-injury.com/intro says 39 injury-related fatalities out of 58 million skier days. So risk of being killed on the US slopes is 1 in every 1.48 million skier days.
On the grounds that we don't worry about being killed in an accident, I wonder if a transceiver is reducing an inconsequential risk.
|
These statistics are poo-poo. Can you imagine the drivers in F1 saying "hang on a minute lads we don't need helmets because the risk of dying in a road traffic accident is 1 in 65 million". lol
Cost is not a valid argument either because the fact is that £300(or however much one costs) is really not a significant amount of money if you are serious about off-piste skiing. Most ski jackets cost upwards of £200 and some retail for considerably more. A day with a guide costs quite a bit. Ski lessons cost a lot. Skis cost a lot. Lift tickets cost heaps. My bindings cost £200+ and FFS replacement brakes are £75/pair!
The whole point about avalanche safety is to avoid being involved in an avalanche in the first place but the fact is that poo-poo happens sometimes so you are better off carrying some kit and forgetting about it until (god forbid) you actually need to use it.
[obviously learning how to use it beforehand is a good thing]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
You can have all sorts of fun with stats. According to this info from Oxford running is safer than cycling, so should I sell my bike? But then cycling is much safer than swimming, so if I swim should I not worry about wearing a cycling helmet when I'm on my bike (or should I wear it when I'm swimming, the buoyancy might help save me)?
Interesting to see that rock climbing is safer than ping pong too. Next time I'm gibbering on a ledge and wondering why I do it at least I can tell myself "thank god your not playing ping pong".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
sah, yup because something being safer than something else is very much dependent on what things you are considering. For example when James the Last claims the paper before shows that "off-piste skiing is safer than driving" this is from a comparison between the data for fatal avalanche accidents only to all fatal accidents whilst driving. This is obviously not like for like as there are many other ways to die whilst skiing off-piste. Further both values ignore the rate of injury which is important in making any sort of reasonable comparison because both off-piste skiers and drivers purchase technology designed to avoid fatal injury. Also the authors admit their ability to accurately measure the number of off-piste and backcountry users is poor and needs improvement. Even worse the data is for a very limited area (as the authors are at pains to repeatedly point out) with no suggestion that it generalises well.
Lies, damn lies and statistics is true only because people have a very hard time understanding how to compare different statistical data together and very importantly the limits of a set of statistical data both in terms of what it applies too and the error inherent in the interpretation of it.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Thu 10-01-13 20:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sah wrote: |
Interesting to see that rock climbing is safer than ping pong too. Next time I'm gibbering on a ledge and wondering why I do it at least I can tell myself "thank god your not playing ping pong". |
What's the leading cause of death for ping pong players? Hitting the table with their head???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| It's interesting that nobody has come on this thread to say 'a beacon saved my life', nor even 'I used a beacon to dig out a friend' - nor even 'A friend of mine's life was saved through having a beacon.' |
I, along with many other sHs, witnessed the recovery effort when the UCPA group were avalanched in Tignes in early December. Two people were buried; one was dug out in about 5 mins and survived, the other was dug out after about 30-40 mins, was resuscitated at the scene but later died in hospital. They were not wearing transceivers, and it is highly likely that they would have been found earlier - and the girl survived - had they been doing so.
I think you're also grossly over-interpreting the stats. The difference between 7 and 10 on studies this size is I'm sure well within the variance of the values. So it may be slightly safer than driving, or it may be slightly less safe - I really doubt we can say with confidence. I'd be far more swayed by your argument if it were a factor of 10 difference, and the study were much larger. We all know driving has a risk attached, and we decide whether it's worth it on a case-by-case basis. If there's loads of black ice around, maybe I'll put off that extra trip to the supermarket/gym/offy until conditions are better. If its a risk 5 day - maybe I'll not do that 40 degree slope  . On a risk 3 or 4 day, I'll be careful (and restrict what I ski appropriately) - but I'll make damn sure there are people around who can help me out of the danger if the worst happens. Similarly if there's a terrain trap around I'll try to avoid it, but if there's no alternative, I'll make damn sure only one of us is at risk at any one time. This is all sensible risk management, and managing downside consequences. Having a transceiver is just one factor in that equation. For several years I didn't own one myself, as the only times I absolutely needed one was when I was in groups that had them provided. Now I do a bit more in ad hoc groups, so I own one.
BTW: except for very early season weeks when there is very little snow, I always carry a transceiver, but don't turn it on if I'm exclusively on piste. This is not for my protection, but in case I come across a near piste avalanche where I could be of use in a search. This was after a harrowing story related several years ago on here where a guy was first on the scene but, as he was only planning to ski on piste that day and had left his transceiver in his hotel room, was unable to assist in a search (unknown to him) with the result that the avi killed a friend/acquaintance who by coincidence was in Val d'I at the same time as him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
except for very early season weeks when there is very little snow
|
Are you assuming less snow means less chance of avalanche, or are you saying you don't go off piste when the cover is thin? If the former, be aware that it takes very little snow to cause an avalanche, and thin snow packs can be *more* unstable than thick ones due to the higher temperature gradient. So less snow is not necessarily safer. If the latter then you are wise, skiing off piste early in the season is very bad for the bank balance 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| abc wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
Interesting to see that rock climbing is safer than ping pong too. Next time I'm gibbering on a ledge and wondering why I do it at least I can tell myself "thank god your not playing ping pong". |
What's the leading cause of death for ping pong players? Hitting the table with their head??? |
Sadly that site does not say. Exploding balls? Crowd violence? Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The latter. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sah wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
Interesting to see that rock climbing is safer than ping pong too. Next time I'm gibbering on a ledge and wondering why I do it at least I can tell myself "thank god your not playing ping pong". |
What's the leading cause of death for ping pong players? Hitting the table with their head??? |
Sadly that site does not say. Exploding balls? Crowd violence? Who knows. |
Could they be meaning sprained ankle as a definition of "less safe than rock climbing"???
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| abc wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
Interesting to see that rock climbing is safer than ping pong too. Next time I'm gibbering on a ledge and wondering why I do it at least I can tell myself "thank god your not playing ping pong". |
What's the leading cause of death for ping pong players? Hitting the table with their head??? |
Sadly that site does not say. Exploding balls? Crowd violence? Who knows. |
Could they be meaning sprained ankle as a definition of "less safe than rock climbing"??? |
The figures were only for fatalities, the interpretation of "less safe" was mine, based on the figures: odds of dying playing table tennis 1 in 250,597 [presumably per match], odds of dying whilst climbing 1 in 320,000 climbs. The table tennis stats were from Germany, maybe they have different rules over there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
If you go off piste skiing there is a risk (how ever small) that you could be caught in an avalanche and buried. That rick is the same whether you and your mates wear transceivers or not. If this does happen to you your chances of being rescued alive are far higher if you have transceivers than if you don't. Its as simple as that, it has nothing to do with driving or ping-pong or anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
sah, You pull the pin from the chunky metal 'ball' then serve as fast as you can 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
TW: except for very early season weeks when there is very little snow, I always carry a transceiver, but don't turn it on if I'm exclusively on piste. This is not for my protection, but in case I come across a near piste avalanche where I could be of use in a search. This was after a harrowing story related several years ago on here where a guy was first on the scene but, as he was only planning to ski on piste that day and had left his transceiver in his hotel room, was unable to assist in a search (unknown to him) with the result that the avi killed a friend/acquaintance who by coincidence was in Val d'I at the same time as him.
|
Good thought GrahamN, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Timmaah, work with it, really not that difficult to understand and wholly relevant to this discussion, which is basically about relative and absolute risk assessment and reduction, as well as emotional investment in participating in off piste skiing and carrying avvy gear. And, as it happens, from the numbers below my post, my educated guess numbers weren't that far out.
Those who are talking about what price on a life should make sure they understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat and then think again about whether it's worth it for them. For the "10 lines a day 100 days a year" no question about its value, but I suspect for the majority of UK based skiers who "go off piste" (a few short low-risk lines side of piste or in between piste a few days a year) it's not really worth the money/hassle if thought about with a cool head on (of course the 10 lines a day 100 days a year crowd might benefit from encouraging wider beacon use). Obviously no harm done if people simply enjoy using them or feel more comfortable with them or consider them and assoc kit so little money/hassle to use/carry that even the tiny potential benefit is better than none, but they should be realistic about benefit or lack of. For most, the statistical chance of benefit seems so small as not to be worth bothering with. A bit like the new skis or get lessons debate, avvy awareness education is probably a better place to concentrate efforts for the casual "off-pister".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
slikedges, I think the problem with this thread is that it's essentially been tackling an argument no ones made or really believes. The focus has always been about education to avoid avalanches rather than dealing with the consequences through gadgets. That's the norm. It's expressed a bit more controversially here but this is the bottom line:
http://freeskier.com/stories/why-decision-making-is-greater-than-a-beacon-with-drew-tabke
The problem with taking generalised statistical risk and applying it to individual risk (and thus coming up with suggestions like group x doesn't need rescue equipment when skiing off-piste because their exposure is low) is that it's not the measure of risk you should be worried about it's the immediate risk on any given day at the top of any given line which is important and that varies wildly. Holiday skiers can and do get killed by avalanches they trigger despite low exposure because of that. It also seems unreasonable that a one week a year skier is going to get the required education and experience to safely assess slopes with a high degree of accuracy. For example most introductory courses that include actual field elements are typically two to three days long and that's just a starting point.
On the cost front most resorts have shops that rent out avi gear and as I said above most holiday skiers would be better off getting a guide who will likely provide the kit as part of the overall cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
meh, he says some controversial stuff I think to get the readers' attention, but I guess my feeling (in stark contradistinction to my knowledge/experience!  ) isn't that different from his: use the gear when appropriate but don't allow yourself to pretend it's the critical thing. The other issue touched upon is the riskiness of the skiing being done. I'd agree that bottom line is if going properly off piste most holiday skiers should buy the knowledge by getting a guide. He'll provide avvy gear but realistically won't concern himself with how well you know how to use it. The question that's beggared is how many more avvy deaths would occur if those who only dabble in off piste (as opposed to those who genuinely spend a majority of each skiing day in the backcountry) didn't know avvy gear existed. And how many more again if these dabblers knew nothing more of avvy risk assessment than the bulletin risk level. I'd wager the number for the latter would be very small enough and for the former much smaller again. In other words NNT for all this is absolutely humungous and far too much is made of it. Doesn't mean any individual can't simply be terribly unlucky but eg we all fly anyway, in other words, even if individually ignorant and unequipped the low overall chance of mishap applies esp if certain adverse factors are mitigated against (ie not being a fully paid up hard core gnarly backcountry skier).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
slikedges, I'm pretty sure most dabblers don't know anything more than the avi risk level and the idea that "3/5 is okay". Properly off-piste (by which I assume you mean avalanche terrain) can be right beside the piste. The dabbler has no idea whether they are going properly off piste or not let alone whether the slope they are dabbling on has any chance of a slide. Whether a slope will slide or not has a lot to do with the conditions on the day so the important factor is still the risk of skiing any one line on any one day. Standing at the top and proclaiming to the world you are a holiday skier isn't going to stop the slope from sliding. Most dabblers are not going to be skiing in what would generally be considered avi terrain but even on slopes where the average slope angle is well below 30 degrees there is often plenty of small scale terrain that is capable of sliding and burying someone. It really doesn't take that much snow if there is a terrain trap for you to get buried in. Much is made of avi awareness because although for the population the per capita chance of getting killed in a slide is relatively low the actual population size is very high so the cost in terms of trying to reach out and educate people is still worthwhile. Particularly as the recent trend is towards freeride and off-piste skiing in general. The place I got my boots fitted in this year told me they'd sold through more touring boots (albeit marketed at freeriding) this year than normal ski boots for example. It's partly this focus on safety and avalanche awareness that has kept death rates relatively static despite a increase in users going off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meh, facts like avalanches occur on piste on rare occasions are peripheral to what I'm saying. If no one at all (even gnarly backcountry types) used beacons, overall the increased death rate per off piste skier day (esp if strictly defined eg straying outside the piste markers) would I suspect not phase the average person. The increased death rate per gnarly backcountry skier day would probably (only probably) put some off though. The increased death rate per (complementary) non-gnarly backcountry skier day would obviously be less than the former. Going back to a commercial aviation analogy, if you don't know squat, you start with rates per passenger journey. If you want a bit more you might look at data for the airline, the model or age of aircraft, the airport, the time, the weather, pilot experience and training, maintenance regimes etc, but if overall the risk is so low, you don't bother with further lower level or more detailed analysis or assessment. I think this is true for the vast majority of holiday skiers who might do a bit of off piste. Their level of involvement is so minimal in duration or difficulty that they can pretty much ignore all this stuff. Easy to learn a bit on the net so why not but only if they're going to get into it properly (joining the gnarly backcountry cohort) would the absolute risks start to warrant courses and kit. There'll be the unlucky dabblers each year who would've benefited by going to town on courses and kit but then we should all avoid driving on B roads. Anyway, just my take on it. I'd agree that increased awareness is in balance good for all esp as not that difficult or expensive to come by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drew Tabke says:
| Quote: |
| If someone offered me a floatation device in case the airplane crashes, I would grab it and hope that I don’t need it. You’re saying you wouldn’t take the life vest? I’d refuse the life preserver, stand up and scream, “But we’re over Texas, and there’s no water in sight! We’re all going to die!” |
I wonder how many life jackets have been made in order to be used in airliners. I once read somewhere that nobody had *ever* had their life saved by the existence of these life jackets. The aircraft that came down in the Hudson river in 2009 arguably changed that, as (Wikipedia reports that) some passengers swam away from the plane. However as the water was reportedly (Wikipedia) 2 degrees at the time, which would cause unconsciousness within 15-30 minutes I reckon that they'd have been better off without the life jackets and sticking where they were...
These really are a complete misunderstanding of risk. But I'm afraid when sah says:
| Quote: |
| but I agree it is bordering on the obscene to actually put monetary values on lives. |
Au contraire. A monetary value is most definitely put on lives. Almost everything we do has applied a value to human life. Wikipedia suggests perhaps £4-5m. So if implementing a safety action will cost more than that, then it’s not worth doing. As mentioned earlier in the thread, given enough money we could probably stop all deaths. The value of a human life is, sorry, finite.
And it is wrong to compare a £200 beacon with £5m, BTW...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Buying a £200 beacon is putting a £5m value on your life if the chance of it saving you in its lifetime is at least 1 in 25000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| meh, facts like avalanches occur on piste on rare occasions are peripheral to what I'm saying. If no one at all (even gnarly backcountry types) used beacons, overall the increased death rate per off piste skier day (esp if strictly defined eg straying outside the piste markers) would I suspect not phase the average person. The increased death rate per gnarly backcountry skier day would probably (only probably) put some off though. The increased death rate per (complementary) non-gnarly backcountry skier day would obviously be less than the former. Going back to a commercial aviation analogy, if you don't know squat, you start with rates per passenger journey. If you want a bit more you might look at data for the airline, the model or age of aircraft, the airport, the time, the weather, pilot experience and training, maintenance regimes etc, but if overall the risk is so low, you don't bother with further lower level or more detailed analysis or assessment. I think this is true for the vast majority of holiday skiers who might do a bit of off piste. Their level of involvement is so minimal in duration or difficulty that they can pretty much ignore all this stuff. Easy to learn a bit on the net so why not but only if they're going to get into it properly (joining the gnarly backcountry cohort) would the absolute risks start to warrant courses and kit. There'll be the unlucky dabblers each year who would've benefited by going to town on courses and kit but then we should all avoid driving on B roads. Anyway, just my take on it. I'd agree that increased awareness is in balance good for all esp as not that difficult or expensive to come by. |
I haven't mentioned avalanches onto pistes, avalanche terrain next to pistes is something different. I posted a thread a couple of days ago about a guy being buried right next to the piste on the Stubai Glacier earlier this month for example. He was wearing a transceiver, was dug out by his buddies and thankfully regained consciousness. There were a whole bunch of people who were surprised because it's the sort of thing they'd skip up off the piste to ski without even thinking about it despite it being a 40 degree slope.
Other than that I completely agree and again think this whole thread is basically tackling a straw man argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
James the Last,
| Quote: |
A monetary value is most definitely put on lives
|
Not by me it isn't. Certainly not on my life.
| Quote: |
As mentioned earlier in the thread, given enough money we could probably stop all deaths. The value of a human life is, sorry, finite.
|
There is no amount of money you could pay me to persuade me to kill myself, so to me the value of my life is in fact, infinite. While we are at it, there is no amount of money you could pay me to kill someone else either.
| Quote: |
And it is wrong to compare a £200 beacon with £5m, BTW...
|
So you put a value on life (assuming you agree with Wikipedia?), why not compare it?
If the cost of using a beacon is £200 a year and lets say you ski off piste 10 days a year (roughly what I do, feel free to use your own numbers) then each time I ski off piste with my beacon I am "paying" £20 for my "insurance". The odds of being buried, and rescued because I have a beacon, as we have seen, are hard to deduce but they are going to something less than 7 in 100,000 (as that is the Swiss figure for the odds of being involved in an avalanche at all on any given day), so maybe 1 in 100,000, or less, 1 in 200,000 perhaps? So if I'm paying £20 to insure something that is, according to Wikipedia, worth £5M then I am assuming the risk must at least 20 / 5,000,000, otherwise I'm not getting value for money. That means I should be happy that my money is well spent if the odds of burial and then rescue are 1 in 250,000 or more.
I don't make those calculations when I decide to buy a beacon or go skiing off piste, but as a thought exercise it looks to me like my beacon is worth the cost using these pretty arbitrary figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
sah, of course it is. Would you pay £100,000 to reduce your chance of death on your next car journey from (say) 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 9,999? If not then you've established an upper bound for the value of your life; from there it's just more questions and maths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
| sah, of course it is. Would you pay £100,000 to reduce your chance of death on your next car journey from (say) 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 9,999? If not then you've established an upper bound for the value of your life; from there it's just more questions and maths. |
No, but if you pointed a gun to my head I'd give you everything I had not to pull the trigger (although sadly for me and any would be thief that amount is somewhat less than £5M).
I might need that £100,000 to pay for life saving treatment in the future, or to fund my skiing hobby, so I can't just give it away. If I had zillions of pounds maybe I would spend £100K to improve my car safety by an incremental amount, but in reality there are other demands on my cash which in some way enhance or (maybe) lengthen my life.
Just because I wouldn't pay a lot of money for a small increase in life expectancy does not imply I put a monetary value on life, it means I prioritize my limited resources and I would certainly aim to use my resources to increase my life expectancy where I deem it appropriate.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Fri 11-01-13 16:26; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| finestgreen wrote: |
| Buying a £200 beacon is putting a £5m value on your life if the chance of it saving you in its lifetime is at least 1 in 25000. |
Dammit, that's [pretty much] what I said, only your explanation is several lines shorter, and written before mine. Sorry, didn't mean to steal your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| sah wrote: |
| Just because I wouldn't pay a lot of money for a small increase in life expectancy does not imply I put a monetary value on life, it means I prioritize my limited resources and I would certainly aim to use my resources to increase my life expectancy where I deem it appropriate. |
It does unless you only use your limited resources to increase your life expectancy and exclusively prioritise only things on this list. Actually you probably use your limited resources same as everyone, for everything from staples and necessities to the frivolous and indulgent. Loads of risks simply aren't worth the cost of mitigating against them even if better endowed with money than mathematical appreciation. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
| Just because I wouldn't pay a lot of money for a small increase in life expectancy does not imply I put a monetary value on life, it means I prioritize my limited resources and I would certainly aim to use my resources to increase my life expectancy where I deem it appropriate. |
It does unless you only use your limited resources to increase your life expectancy and exclusively prioritise only things on this list. Actually you probably use your limited resources same as everyone, for everything from staples and necessities to the frivolous and indulgent. Loads of risks simply aren't worth the cost of mitigating against them even if better endowed with money than mathematical appreciation. |
Not really, if you consider quality of life rather than over all life expectancy then everything I spend money on is with the aim of improving my quality of of life. E.g. If I give money to a charity that is with the hope the hope that it will help someone, and that in turn improves my feeling of well being so it improves my quality of life. If I buy a pint it is because I anticipate I will enjoy it (and this is indeed usually the case), it might not lengthen my life but it will certainly improve it. So, everything I spend is, in some way, for my benefit, even if vicariously so. I certainly don't deliberately spend money on something I don't care about, nor do I spend money on anything that will cause me net harm (skiing off piste may kill me, but I judge the net benefit to be positive because I enjoy it while I am alive).
Even buying staples is a way of enhancing my life, I can't stand loose bits of paper on my desk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| sah wrote: |
| slikedges wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
| Just because I wouldn't pay a lot of money for a small increase in life expectancy does not imply I put a monetary value on life, it means I prioritize my limited resources and I would certainly aim to use my resources to increase my life expectancy where I deem it appropriate. |
It does unless you only use your limited resources to increase your life expectancy and exclusively prioritise only things on this list. Actually you probably use your limited resources same as everyone, for everything from staples and necessities to the frivolous and indulgent. Loads of risks simply aren't worth the cost of mitigating against them even if better endowed with money than mathematical appreciation. |
Not really, if you consider quality of life rather than over all life expectancy then everything I spend money on is with the aim of improving my quality of of life. E.g. If I give money to a charity that is with the hope the hope that it will help someone, and that in turn improves my feeling of well being so it improves my quality of life. If I buy a pint it is because I anticipate I will enjoy it (and this is indeed usually the case), it might not lengthen my life but it will certainly improve it. So, everything I spend is, in some way, for my benefit, even if vicariously so. I certainly don't deliberately spend money on something I don't care about, nor do I spend money on anything that will cause me net harm (skiing off piste may kill me, but I judge the net benefit to be positive because I enjoy it while I am alive). |
You're right about all that of course, in fact exactly as I think about things, but in my belief the fact remains that avvy gear even if cheap and convenient from your perspective probably represents extraordinarily poor value to most skiers who use it.
| sah wrote: |
| Even buying staples is a way of enhancing my life, I can't stand loose bits of paper on my desk. |
Even as I typed that I knew I was asking for it
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
slikedges, finestgreen, in these money for life arguments/calculations you are implicitly assuming I am rational. I am pretty sure this is not the case. It is entirely possible that I (think that I) place an infinite value on my life but at the same time do not necessarily act that way. Especially when looking at a nice menu, or an untouched powder slope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
sah, when it comes to skiing and other visceral pleasures, being rational is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
This is why I carry a beacon.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=67735
You can hear the panic in his breathing, not a nice way to go.
I'm a tourer not a just down the side of the piste skier. Help for me is only going to come form my mates and vice-versa. You don't have the kit, you aren't coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| OwenM wrote: |
| I'm a tourer not a just down the side of the piste skier. Help for me is only going to come form my mates and vice-versa. You don't have the kit, you aren't coming. |
That's nice. By what mathematical percentage do you think your life is extended by this decision?
I think this is a very fascinating thread. Illogically, obviously, that girl in Tignes in December needed a beacon; logically she shouldn't have been (told to be) skiing there in the first place. I suggest a lack of mountaincraft killed her; not a lack of a beacon.
I go back to my earlier statement; arguably a logical way to behave is to carry a receive-only beacon. That way you never put yourself in a position that is likely to mean you need to use it - but your chums don't feel they have been put in danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James the Last, it's all about margins. With the best will in the world, if you ski off-piste for long enough, there will come a time when your margin has been eroded and you will be glad you had a beacon. This happened to a mate of mine 3 years ago, while skiing off-piste with a guide. The punter behind closed up on him too much on a traverse and the extra weight (most likely) triggered a slide. Both where recovered thanks to their beacons.
It's not just what you do. It's not just your level of mountain craft. Understand that others can feck you up big time.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 11-01-13 22:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just seen that there was another avi death in Tignes in December, a week after the one I mentioned above. Again, two people buried, the guy who died (dug out after 30mins, heart restarted but died later in hospital) was not wearing a transceiver. (OK the one who was dug out quickly was spotted by his bobble hat). I think it's pretty clear that if you're buried by an avalanche then your chances of getting out alive are much higher with one than without. And there are enough vids posted of people being buried in avalanches to show it's not a vanishingly small probability.
And regarding the first occasion - I've still not heard a definitive answer as to whether the girl who died was skiing off-piste, or was taken out by an avalanche that came onto the piste (which was open but had not been piste-bashed). It was certainly on-piste where they were probing for her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
And regarding the first occasion - I've still not heard a definitive answer as to whether the girl who died was skiing off-piste, or was taken out by an avalanche that came onto the piste (which was open but had not been piste-bashed). It was certainly on-piste where they were probing for her. |
An excellent example of an occasion whereby the margin is removed by a 3rd party. James seems to think it's always the individual who is in charge of his own destiny. But this is dangerously misguided thinking. Someone else's poor mountain craft can take you out just as easily as your own and you won't even see it coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| OwenM wrote: |
| I'm a tourer not a just down the side of the piste skier. Help for me is only going to come form my mates and vice-versa. You don't have the kit, you aren't coming. |
That's nice. By what mathematical percentage do you think your life is extended by this decision?
Its got nothing to do with mathematical percentages. When I say tourer I mean we go away for weeks at a time, we like to go as far from the madding crowd as possible therefore the only help we are likely to get is from each other. As I put earlier in this thread, your chances of being caught and buried in an avalanche are the same whether your wearing a beacon or not. Without one your chances of being found and dug out are very very low, so low as to be no chance. With one you have a chance. The system only works if everyone has the kit and knows how to use it, who can say who's going to be buried and who's going to be doing the searching.
The snow pack can change during a single day let alone a week, it might get better or it might get worse either way you have to get home sometime. Staying on piste or staying in the bar are not always an option.
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
