 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Does anybody have any idea how many people are dug out by their ski buddies each year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
No idea, but if it's only one it's worth 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?
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| No idea, but if it's only one it's worth it. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
James the Last, alive? Dunno, but a lot more than are dug out alive by mountain rescue guys, and neary infinitely more than are dug out alive after being found by RECCO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I'd also be interested in how many (alive). It is one thing to have the gear and know how to use it and another to not get caught in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
James the Last, have a look at the piste hors web site. It has all the avalanches in France listed with outcomes. Probably not very many if the question is: "how many people are dug out by their ski buddies each year whose position was only detected by use of an avalanche transceiver?" Rather than: "how many peopel were dug out by their ski buddies- who found them through any means?"
I think the real trick is to not get caught in the first place!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data from the large Austrian/Swiss study of Brugger et al. (which looked at about 1500 people involved in avalanches) indicated that if you're completely buried without a transceiver, you have an approx. 70% chance of dying. If you have a transceiver this drops to about 55%. In other words, don't get buried. Airbags are a much more effective safety device, and not getting caught is 100% effective!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to Tremper's book in untrained hands use of a digital transceiver reduces mortality by up to 15%, he also quotes a Swiss study of experienced users which estimates the reduction in mortality to be 75-80%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
One figure that's often quoted is approx. 25% of avalanche victims die from trauma not being bured, so having a transciver wont help them. That being said, having transcivers and someone left on the surface is the only realistic chance the other 75% have.
Edited once, got the percentages wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ed123 wrote: |
James the Last, have a look at the piste hors web site. It has all the avalanches in France listed with outcomes. Probably not very many if the question is: "how many people are dug out by their ski buddies each year whose position was only detected by use of an avalanche transceiver?" Rather than: "how many peopel were dug out by their ski buddies- who found them through any means?"
I think the real trick is to not get caught in the first place! |
It does NOT have all the avalanches in France listed. It has the tiny proportional of avalanches listed that get media / authority attention. For every case on there, there will be many that go unreported. If someone successfully digs there buddy out they will be unlikely to report it. Its only when the outcome is bad that it is likely to get reported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| sah wrote: |
| According to Tremper's book in untrained hands use of a digital transceiver reduces mortality by up to 15%, he also quotes a Swiss study of experienced users which estimates the reduction in mortality to be 75-80%. |
I think (relying on memory here, so you can correct me if I'm wrong), by experienced he meant guides/instructors- in other words very highly trained and practiced individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| OwenM wrote: |
One figure that's often quoted is approx. 25% of avalanche victims die from trauma not being bured, so having a transciver wont help them. That being said, having transcivers and someone left on the surface is the only realistic chance the other 75% have.
Edited once, got the percentages wrong. |
25% is a US figure, it is 6% in Europe, mainly because we have less tree skiing apparently (again quoting Temper).
Really your best chance if you are caught is not being completely buried, hence why airbags are so effective (98% survival rate according to Tremper, providing no other trauma).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| evski wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
| According to Tremper's book in untrained hands use of a digital transceiver reduces mortality by up to 15%, he also quotes a Swiss study of experienced users which estimates the reduction in mortality to be 75-80%. |
I think (relying on memory here, so you can correct me if I'm wrong), by experienced he meant guides/instructors- in other words very highly trained and practiced individuals. |
No, he actually meant Swiss ski tourers in that particular stat. Strangely the figure for professionals the US was slightly lower than this. Although perhaps it is not so strange, by the time the ski patrol has been alerted and got to the scene it might already be too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
| It does NOT have all the avalanches in France listed. It has the tiny proportional of avalanches listed that get media / authority attention. For every case on there, there will be many that go unreported. If someone successfully digs there buddy out they will be unlikely to report it. Its only when the outcome is bad that it is likely to get reported. |
I don't buy it's a tiny proportion. I would expect even if I dug out my mate I would call the emergency services. Only if I was pretty certain they were totally unscathed would I not. And in the circs I would have thought that unlikely. If it was so common i.e., what they reported was a tiny proportion then there would stories on here, left and centre. How many folks on here know of an ava where someone was buried and recovered unbeknown to the authorities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
If there were a definitive answer to "how many lives do avalanche beacons save?" it would have to be arrived at by including "how many lives do avalanche beacons cost?" as part of the calculation. I have no idea, but I would bet fatalities where an increased sense of security and hence bravado induced by wearing one (even by a small minority of impressionable users) was a contributory cause would be statistically significant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| No idea, but if it's only one it's worth it. |
Absolutely disagree with you. You suggest a distorted view of risk and the return on investment. The corollary of that statement is that all on-piste skiers, and indeed all pedestrians in resort should wear beacons as if they save one life then it's worth it. Maybe we should wear them in bed too, 'just in case'.
If we spend enough money we can stop all deaths, everywhere, for all time (I don't just mean skiing ones). Why don't we? Because it's too expensive.
Which is why I asked the question in the first place. Don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that they're pointless or that people shouldn't use them (or that they should use them, for that matter). I just wondered...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| Spyderman wrote: |
| No idea, but if it's only one it's worth it. |
Absolutely disagree with you. You suggest a distorted view of risk and the return on investment. The corollary of that statement is that all on-piste skiers, and indeed all pedestrians in resort should wear beacons as if they save one life then it's worth it. Maybe we should wear them in bed too, 'just in case'.
If we spend enough money we can stop all deaths, everywhere, for all time (I don't just mean skiing ones). Why don't we? Because it's too expensive.
Which is why I asked the question in the first place. Don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that they're pointless or that people shouldn't use them (or that they should use them, for that matter). I just wondered... |
If you want an exact number it is 7. Seriously, for Switzerland the average number of deaths of buried skiers per year has dropped form 27 to 20 since beacons were introduced (interestingly they note that the number of burials is unchanged, which I find surprising - it is around 35 to 40 per year even though o/p sport has become more popular, and the idea that wearing a beacon causes more risk taking is not borne out here). This article from davidof on pistehors.com about Swiss research has the numbers. Be very careful about reading too much in to a raw number though. You need to factor in other changes such as better forecasting, better education and importantly in my view since this research was done there will be far more digital transceivers in use.
Is it worth £200 to increase my survival chances in a burial by ~20%. I think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
^ The simple answer is that if your are buried under the snow whilst wearing a beacon, and well trained friends, you have approx a 30% chance of survival. Without a beacon that drops to about 1-2%.
The SLF (swiss avalanche institute) have good statistics on this - check their website.
In order to have any chance of surviving an avalanche you need companions to dig you out within 15 minutes.
Waiting for the rescue services to be alerted and arrive is not an option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
While we are on topic...
The 97% survival rate quoted by ABS marketing needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
Primarily because pulling the trigger does not mean the avalanche would have subsequently buried you. According to SLF only 10% of victims are buried, plus many small incidents go unreported. So calibrating the figures for airbags is near impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
James the Last, If you are coming off-piste skiing with me --- you'll need a transciever, and to know how to use it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
James the Last, good for you I agree completely! Have you been reading THinking Fast and Slow (or Irrationality or similar recently).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've completely made these figures up. If the chance of being caught in an avalanche was 1 in a 100 for each day spent off-piste if ignorant of avalanche avoidance but 1 in a 100000 for each day spent off-piste if educated in avalanche avoidance, I think some avalanche avoidance education would likely be considered worthwhile by most. If the risk of death from avalanche for each day spent off piste was 0.6 in a 100000 for each day spent off piste without a transceiver and 0.3 in a 100000 for each day spent off-piste with a transceiver, would most still consider it worthwhile to buy and learn how to use one, especially if only going side-of-piste or in-between piste irregularly over a day's skiing? I doubt it. My feeling is that though the real figures might differ from those I made up by even an order of magnitude, the spirit of the second postulate bears consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| I've completely made these figures up. If the chance of being caught in an avalanche was 1 in a 100 for each day spent off-piste if ignorant of avalanche avoidance but 1 in a 100000 for each day spent off-piste if educated in avalanche avoidance, I think some avalanche avoidance education would likely be considered worthwhile by most. If the risk of death from avalanche for each day spent off piste was 0.6 in a 100000 for each day spent off piste without a transceiver and 0.3 in a 100000 for each day spent off-piste with a transceiver, would most still consider it worthwhile to buy and learn how to use one, especially if only going side-of-piste or in-between piste irregularly over a day's skiing? I doubt it. My feeling is that though the real figures might differ from those I made up by even an order of magnitude, the spirit of the second postulate bears consideration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| sah wrote: |
If you want an exact number it is 7. Seriously, for Switzerland the average number of deaths of buried skiers per year has dropped form 27 to 20 since beacons were introduced (interestingly they note that the number of burials is unchanged, which I find surprising - it is around 35 to 40 per year even though o/p sport has become more popular, and the idea that wearing a beacon causes more risk taking is not borne out here). Is it worth £200 to increase my survival chances in a burial by ~20%. I think so. |
It's not just £200; it's carrying it (and everything else) too...
Annual skier days in Switzerland 28 million. http://tinyurl.com/as3kjdm Annual benefit of using a transceiver thus 1 in every four million skier days.
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.
| ski wrote: |
| James the Last, If you are coming off-piste skiing with me --- you'll need a transceiver, and to know how to use it |
Would you be happy if I were to carry a receive-only version? (It would depend on where you were taking me, of course. But I don't think I'd want to follow if you were taking me to a place where I felt I would want a version that transmitted too. Because that would be meaning that I was assuming that the kit was making me invincible.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James the Last, you need to look at the stats for off-piste users skier days not total skier days as most people pootle around on the piste. If you ski mostly on piste and only once a year for a week you are in the demographic for hiring a guide for a days off-piste adventure so don't need a transceiver at all as the use of one will be included in the price usually. If you spend the vast majority of time off piste or touring then you should be going properly equipped to be able to rescue your friends should the worst happen. It's a question of exposure to risk over a long period of time which make the odds higher. Ski enough and even if your decision making is 99% right you are going to expose yourself to a lot of potential danger, ski ten lines a day for one hundred days per season and that's ten potential avalanches per year. Ski ten years like that and it stacks up fast. Which is why you carry companion rescue gear and I doubt most people skiing off-piste are making decisions that well hence almost all avalanche victims or the party they are with trigger the avalanche that kills them.
Long odds don't mean it can't happen to you on your first go though.
Do you also not bother to wear a seatbelt and disable your airbags because it might make you drive more recklessly?
I honestly cannot see what point you are getting at with this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
If you want an exact number it is 7. Seriously, for Switzerland the average number of deaths of buried skiers per year has dropped form 27 to 20 since beacons were introduced (interestingly they note that the number of burials is unchanged, which I find surprising - it is around 35 to 40 per year even though o/p sport has become more popular, and the idea that wearing a beacon causes more risk taking is not borne out here). Is it worth £200 to increase my survival chances in a burial by ~20%. I think so. |
It's not just £200; it's carrying it (and everything else) too...
Annual skier days in Switzerland 28 million. http://tinyurl.com/as3kjdm Annual benefit of using a transceiver thus 1 in every four million skier days.
|
That is the number of skier days for ski resorts; the people who use and benefit from transceivers are off piste skiers and ski tourers. There is no serious suggestion that on-piste skiers would benefit from using transceivers.
SLF research shows that risk of being involved in an avalanche accident for off piste skiers is about 7 in 100,000 and ski tourers and other backcountry users it is about 4 in 100,000. As an interesting side note they show that this risk is slightly lower than the risk of driving a car in Switzerland.
If you want the data take a look at the SLF site or read a book. E.g. there are a lot of publications in English here For books I have already bleated on about Tremper, but there are others. I think Tremper is the best of those I've read, certainly if you want stats he has the most recent research in there. A lot of the other books focus more on practicalities, but he covers both the research side and the practical side very well.
[EDIT] Be careful comparing stats directly - the 7/100,000 is chance of being involved in an avalanche accident, not the chance of complete burial which is where the number 7 came form above. Thankfully not everyone involved in an avalanche is buried... again, for the gory details you need to read the research and not rely on anonymous internet trolls who may cherry pick the data they show (although I try very hard not to).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Would you be happy if I were to carry a receive-only version? (It would depend on where you were taking me, of course. But I don't think I'd want to follow if you were taking me to a place where I felt I would want a version that transmitted too. Because that would be meaning that I was assuming that the kit was making me invincible.)
|
James the Last, To put it simply -- I'd want you to be able to search for me of something went wrong. The kit does not make you invincible. Nothing does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you SAH, you have clearly done the maths. Or at least found somebody who has done the maths
| sah wrote: |
shows that risk of being involved in an avalanche accident for off piste skiers is about 7 in 100,000 and ski tourers and other backcountry users it is about 4 in 100,000. As an interesting side note they show that this risk is slightly lower than the risk of driving a car in Switzerland.
[EDIT] Be careful comparing stats directly - the 7/100,000 is chance of being involved in an avalanche accident, not the chance of complete burial which is where the number 7 came form above. Thankfully not everyone involved in an avalanche is buried... again, for the gory details you need to read the research and not rely on anonymous internet trolls who may cherry pick the data they show (although I try very hard not to). |
Para 5.2 of your document shows that the risk of off-piste skiing is a mere 70% of the risk of driving by car. Doesn't this suggest that beacons are a waste of time, effort and money and that you could improve your life chances more easily by never travelling by car?
Obviously for the individual skier who is caught in an avalanche, buried and rescued by his chums, it isn't a waste of time. Just like wearing a motorcycle helmet in a car (or as a pedestrian) would improve the risk for a person who is about to be involved in a road accident, which is similarly not a waste of time. But nobody bothers wearing a helmet under such circumstances, so I suggest that bothering to carry a beacon is about on a par.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Obviously for the individual skier who is caught in an avalanche, buried and rescued by his chums, it isn't a waste of time. Just like wearing a motorcycle helmet in a car (or as a pedestrian) would improve the risk for a person who is about to be involved in a road accident, which is similarly not a waste of time. But nobody bothers wearing a helmet under such circumstances, so I suggest that bothering to carry a beacon is about on a par.
|
Not sure about that - you are implying that wearing a helmet is the only thing to protect you in an accident in a car. This is not the case - think about seatbelts for example.
When/if you are buried you will suffocate. There are several options -- opt not to ski where you may be avalanched (i.e. don't ski), wear something that prevents burial (ABS), and/or extend the time you can breath (Avalung) and reduce the time to find you (transciever).
If you choose to ski offpiste, the best way to stay safe is not to be avalanched. Taking an avy course, or taking a mountain guide with you can reduce - but not prevent the risk of an avalanche - and if you are buried, chances of being found alive are improved by having a beacon, and knowing how to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
James the Last, yet the organisation that collated the data completely disagrees with your conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| James the Last wrote: |
Thank you SAH, you have clearly done the maths. Or at least found somebody who has done the maths
| sah wrote: |
shows that risk of being involved in an avalanche accident for off piste skiers is about 7 in 100,000 and ski tourers and other backcountry users it is about 4 in 100,000. As an interesting side note they show that this risk is slightly lower than the risk of driving a car in Switzerland.
[EDIT] Be careful comparing stats directly - the 7/100,000 is chance of being involved in an avalanche accident, not the chance of complete burial which is where the number 7 came form above. Thankfully not everyone involved in an avalanche is buried... again, for the gory details you need to read the research and not rely on anonymous internet trolls who may cherry pick the data they show (although I try very hard not to). |
Para 5.2 of your document shows that the risk of off-piste skiing is a mere 70% of the risk of driving by car. Doesn't this suggest that beacons are a waste of time, effort and money and that you could improve your life chances more easily by never travelling by car?
Obviously for the individual skier who is caught in an avalanche, buried and rescued by his chums, it isn't a waste of time. Just like wearing a motorcycle helmet in a car (or as a pedestrian) would improve the risk for a person who is about to be involved in a road accident, which is similarly not a waste of time. But nobody bothers wearing a helmet under such circumstances, so I suggest that bothering to carry a beacon is about on a par. |
It is not "my" document, it is research published by the SLF, with which I have no connection other than as a member of the public who uses their resources. And I pointed out in my post that this comparison was made in the research. And no, this is not my maths, this is all quoted from the SLF publications.
I really am at a loss to see you point. If you are trying to argue that transceivers are not worth the cost then you are wrong, they save lives and the chance of a transceiver saving my life or the life of someone else I ski with is high enough to me to justify the cost of the transceiver, the shovel, the probe, the water bottle I carry, the bar of Riter Sport that I pretend is for emergencies but will probably get eaten anyway, the 3 day training course I took last year, the days out with guides, the books I read. I even justify the cost to my time of arguing with you because I hope someone will read this and think, even just for a minute, about off piste safety.
If you ski off piste and do not have a transceiver then if you get caught in an avalanche (7/100,000 chance) and if you get buried (not sure of the stats there and I won't make them up) then someone will come and look for you (hopefully). Since there is no transceiver signal this will involve a probe line of dozens of rescuers, probably working through the night in an area where, by definition, avalanches happen, in order to find your body. If nothing else wearing a transceiver would have made the searchers lives a lot easier. The decision you make have impact on other people, I would think seriously about that impact on others when you do you cost benefit analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| ski wrote: |
| Not sure about that - you are implying that wearing a helmet is the only thing to protect you in an accident in a car. This is not the case - think about seatbelts for example. |
No, no! The statistics are for people travelling in cars currently, with all current safety precautions in place. To make travelling by car safer than skiing off piste you would have to introduce an additional level of safety, say wearing a helmet.
| Quote: |
| If you choose to ski offpiste, the best way to stay safe is not to be avalanched. Taking an avy course, or taking a mountain guide with you can reduce - but not prevent the risk of an avalanche - and if you are buried, chances of being found alive are improved by having a beacon, and knowing how to use it. |
As the chances of being buried are considerably lower than those of being in a damaging car accident, the ABS or beacon involves protecting against a level of risk that you're not bothering to protect yourself against in everyday life.
I'm not trying to argue they're not worth the cost, SAH, which is a piffling sum of money; more that they're not worth the level of effort suggested by those who are members of the beacon religion - as the net improvement to safety is small relative to the way one behaves in real life.
| 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.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| sah wrote: |
| [transceivers] save lives |
Of course they do. But then we have to work out whether the amount of effort put into saving these lives is disproportionate:
| sah wrote: |
| and the chance of a transceiver saving my life or the life of someone else I ski with is high enough to me to justify |
because in fact the chance of a transceiver saving a life is much, much lower than the chance of your dying in a car crash.
| Quote: |
| I even justify the cost to my time of arguing with you because I hope someone will read this and think, even just for a minute, about off piste safety. |
I like to think we're not arguing, but having a sensible discussion about risk perception and moderation. I'm not sure where you think I'm *not* thinking about off-piste safety?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| James the Last wrote: |
| sah wrote: |
| [transceivers] save lives |
Of course they do. But then we have to work out whether the amount of effort put into saving these lives is disproportionate:
|
In that case you need to put a value on your life. Even if the odds of me needing to use a transciever are remote the cost of owning one is still "cheaper" than the cost of losing my life. Don't start some tangential argument about "why don't you wear a helmet when you drive", I have implicitly decided the cost there is not worth it. I am more than happy to take a risk on the roads and a risk with skiing, but I do what I can to reduce the risk and still enjoy skiing off piste.
| Quote: |
| sah wrote: |
| and the chance of a transceiver saving my life or the life of someone else I ski with is high enough to me to justify |
because in fact the chance of a transceiver saving a life is much, much lower than the chance of your dying in a car crash.
|
So what? I drive and I ski, so I have to balance all the risks as I encounter them. Why is road death the benchmark? Are you suggesting that you don't address any risk if the activity is [slightly] safer than driving?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I even justify the cost to my time of arguing with you because I hope someone will read this and think, even just for a minute, about off piste safety. |
I like to think we're not arguing, but having a sensible discussion about risk perception and moderation. I'm not sure where you think I'm *not* thinking about off-piste safety? |
I'm sure you are thinking about off piste safety, 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Out of interest, how many transceivers have led to a death i.e. rescuers digging, not probing, and finding a detached transceiver or a harness getting snagged on a chair lift and the wearer slowly throwing off the mortal coil on the chair's return jouney down the mountain as the improvised noose cinches tight bit by bit with another jerk as every pylon is passed ?
If we are going to have an informed debate I think we should consider the downside. Any Swiss studies of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
James the Last - first of all it's quite possible that there's no additional safety device for driving, including wearing a motorcycle-grade helmet, which will reduce the death risk as much as a transceiver may reduce the avy death risk. Secondly, wearing a transceiver is much easier than wearing a helmet while driving.
You do what you want, of course, if you can find partners for offpiste skiing who are ok with you not wearing one.
I do think that the recommendation for piste skiers to wear a transceiver is absolutely pointless and could actually create a lot of problems in case of near-piste avy burials. I wear mine every day because the days when I don't venture offpiste at all are few and far between, but that's a different situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sah wrote: |
In that case you need to put a value on your life. Even if the odds of me needing to use a transciever are remote the cost of owning one is still "cheaper" than the cost of losing my life. Don't start some tangential argument about "why don't you wear a helmet when you drive", I have implicitly decided the cost there is not worth it. I am more than happy to take a risk on the roads and a risk with skiing, but I do what I can to reduce the risk and still enjoy skiing off piste.
So what? I drive and I ski, so I have to balance all the risks as I encounter them. Why is road death the benchmark? Are you suggesting that you don't address any risk if the activity is [slightly] safer than driving?
|
I think the point is, YOU make your choice of which risk you're comfortable to live with (NOT wearing helmet while driving), and which risk you can comfortably reduce (wearing a transceiver). James might choose to make the reverse of that choice (wearing a helmet while driving but not a transceiver while skiing off-piste).
Both of you are making a CONVENIENCE choice about a relatively tiny risk. No need to stressed out about either. (well, no one is stressed out about driving without helmet, so they shouldn't stressed out about transceiver either).
Personally, I reduce driving as much as I can because it makes a much bigger difference in reducing risk of auto accidents. But I don't wear helmet in a car. I've worn transceiver skiing off-piste but had also done so without. I don't feel very strongly about it either way (with or without transceiver) because I'm quite aware of the relative risk level. (I would add I've declined on skiing off-piste on days when *I* don't feel the avi risk is LOW ENOUGH FOR ME).
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Thu 10-01-13 18:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
Out of interest, how many transceivers have led to a death i.e. rescuers digging, not probing, and finding a detached transceiver or a harness getting snagged on a chair lift and the wearer slowly throwing off the mortal coil on the chair's return jouney down the mountain as the improvised noose cinches tight bit by bit with another jerk as every pylon is passed ?
If we are going to have an informed debate I think we should consider the downside. Any Swiss studies of that? |
[edit] sorry, I misread your post. you meant two scenarios, only one involving a lift...
Finding a detached one is possible but if worn properly unlikely, but yes, someone else could die while a searcher looked for a transceiver that got detached, or was attached to a dead body.
As for a transceiver doing you harm, maybe. Again if worn properly unlikely.
I am not aware of any research in to the latter case, but the case of multiple victims is researched there may be data on that. The general advice is to search for the nearest signal first, if that person had died through trauma and this delayed you finding a second person who could have lived then you could argue that the first person's transceiver did indeed contribute to the death of the second person. If there are multiple searchers and they are using devices that can differentiate multiple burials then this is less of a risk.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Thu 10-01-13 18:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| horizon wrote: |
I do think that the recommendation for piste skiers to wear a transceiver is absolutely pointless and could actually create a lot of problems in case of near-piste avy burials. |
Agree. Where did that "recommendation" come from? It's not something I've ever heard of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
