One more skier death thread...only because this is what mountains SHOULD do

[ss20]

Very nice statement from Mohawk. Seems to me the bigger resorts try to cover up and not acknowledge what is one of the "inherit risks" of the sport they provide. A simple "prayers and wishes are with the family" statement like this is nice, imo.

A Statement from
Mohawk Mountain Ski Area:

At approximately 8:15pm on Saturday, February 11, 2017, a serious collision between a skier and snowboarder occurred at Mohawk Mountain Ski Area.

Ski Patrol responded rapidly, providing first aid and care for the injured skier. The skier was transported by ambulance, then helicopter to a trauma center where, sadly, this person later passed away.

Mohawk Mountain values the safety and well-being of its customers and an investigation that includes the Connecticut State Police is ongoing.

The thoughts and prayers of Mohawk Mountain management, staff and Ski Patrol are with each person touched by this incident, especially this skier’s family, friends and loved ones.

 

[Domeskier]

Agreed. Saw on the local news that a snowboarder was killed at Killington on Saturday. Tree collision again. Here is a link:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/02/11/new-jersey-snowboarder-dies-killington/97800300/

the reporter also uses that weird euphemism about "leaving the trail."

 

[gmcunni]

i don't have any statistics but seems like this is happening more this season that in the past. horrible news each and every time.

 

[Jully]

Very nice statement from Mohawk. Seems to me the bigger resorts try to cover up and not acknowledge what is one of the "inherit risks" of the sport they provide. A simple "prayers and wishes are with the family" statement like this is nice, imo.

That is definitely nice. I wish more mountains would do that. I wonder if they did it because it was a collision between two individuals on the mountain though.

There's definitely more talk about skier deaths on AZ than in years past, but I wonder how much of that is a snowball effect. I am now noticing it other places more and more, but that just may be because I am thinking about it.

 

[cdskier]

i don't have any statistics but seems like this is happening more this season that in the past. horrible news each and every time.

It does seem higher, but that could just be due to how easy it is to come across this info now. Either way, terrible to hear about another loss like this.

Here are the official stats:

According to NSAA, during the past 10 years, an average of 38 people per season have died while skiing or snowboarding at a ski area in the United States. NSAA collects fatality data from every ski area in the United States, either directly or through one of the four
main insurance companies that provide coverage for ski areas.

During the 2015/16 season, 39 fatalities occurred out of the 52.8 million skier/snowboarder days reported for the season, a slight
increase over the 2014/15 season when there were 35 fatalities

Edit: And here's a chart of the actual numbers for the past 10 years:

 

[BenedictGomez]

I'm not really seeing what's nice about the MM statement or how it's much different than any other mountain's statement regarding these tragedies.

 

[drjeff]

I'm not really seeing what's nice about the MM statement or how it's much different than any other mountain's statement regarding these tragedies.

My hunch is it is that Mohawk, themselves, actually put out a statement with condolences to the victim's family, whereas the majority of skier/rider death reports are via a news report and not directly from the mountain itself

 

[dlague]

It is getting crazy! Earlier incidents seemed as though the firm/icy conditions might have played a role but the last two seem to be during better snow conditions. Obviously the collision is a tough one and an on trail situation that involved another person which is scary enough.

Sad to hear!

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[BenedictGomez]

And here's a chart of the actual numbers for the past 10 years:

So I did the math, and the blended 10-year average is 1 skier death per 1,494,768 skier days.

So to put this in perspective since I love numbers, according to the NWS, the odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 in 13,000*, so you're about 115 times more likely to be hit by lightning than be killed skiing.

And since 10% of those hit by lightning die from it, an apples to apples "death comparison" means that you're 11.5 times more likely to be killed by lightning than to be killed by skiing.


*http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml

 

[BenedictGomez]

My hunch is it is that Mohawk, themselves, actually put out a statement with condolences to the victim's family, whereas the majority of skier/rider death reports are via a news report and not directly from the mountain itself

I've never really paid attention to that I guess. I recall Camelback putting one out a few weeks ago:

http://www.skicamelback.com/press-room/press-room/detail/14/

Personally I don't really care either way whether the mountain releases an official PR, though I do agree it's "the right" thing to do.

 

[Jully]

So I did the math, and the blended 10-year average is 1 skier death per 1,494,768 skier days.

So to put this in perspective since I love numbers, according to the NWS, the odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 in 13,000*, so you're about 115 times more likely to be hit by lightning than be killed skiing.


*http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml

Love it. It is exceedingly rare to be killed skiing, but still gives me chills when I see coverage of a skier death.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Love it. It is exceedingly rare to be killed skiing, but still gives me chills when I see coverage of a skier death.

Yeah, definitely makes me feel a bit better.

And of course there are things we can do to increase our safety odds, like wearing a helmet, not going tuna speed, if you are going to go tuna speed don't do it at trail edge, etc...

 

[dlague]

So I did the math, and the blended 10-year average is 1 skier death per 1,494,768 skier days.

So to put this in perspective since I love numbers, according to the NWS, the odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 in 13,000*, so you're about 115 times more likely to be hit by lightning than be killed skiing.

And since 10% of those hit by lightning die from it, an apples to apples "death comparison" means that you're 11.5 times more likely to be killed by lightning than to be killed by skiing.


*http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml

Well one is a very random natural event where some precautions could limit a strike, however, the other (skiing deaths) has elements of self control that could have prevented it.

 

[catskills]

How many people in the USA die traveling to a ski resort and home again each year?

Without Google, I bet a $100 that its a lot more than 40 per year.

 

[CoolMike]

So I did the math, and the blended 10-year average is 1 skier death per 1,494,768 skier days.

So to put this in perspective since I love numbers, according to the NWS, the odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime are 1 in 13,000*, so you're about 115 times more likely to be hit by lightning than be killed skiing.

And since 10% of those hit by lightning die from it, an apples to apples "death comparison" means that you're 11.5 times more likely to be killed by lightning than to be killed by skiing.


*http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.shtml

Not to be pedantic but this is of course not an appropriate comparison. The NWS data cited is the lifetime risk of being a lightning strike victim. The data also shows a 10% chance of death from each lightning strike. Assuming nobody gets hit twice that's a 1/130,000 chance of death by lightning strike per lifetime. Your average skier death cited is per skier-visit. From this we can calculate the lifetime mortality risk of skiing by guessing the total number of visits in a skier's 'career'. My TI-83 is broken, so I did the math in excel. Here's my result:

Odds of dying per skier visit-day
6.69E-07
Survival Odds per Visit-Day
0.999999331
Average # of Visit-Days per Skier Lifetime
200
Survival Odds per Skier Lifetime
0.999866209
Mortality odds per skier lifetime
0.000133791
Odds of getting struck by lightning (over 80 year lifespan)
7.69231E-05
Odds of dying by lightning strike
7.69231E-06
Odds of dying by lightning strike expressed in decimal notation
0.000007692

Lifetime mortality risk ratio: Skiing / Lightning Strike
17.4

Therefore I'd estimate that an average skier is about 17 times more likely to die skiing than getting hit by lightning. The 200 day career was a wild guess based on what I think a frequent recreational skier may do in their lifetimes (perhaps 10 visits a day while they are adults and before the kids graduate high school?)

That being said, without any numbers I do think its more dangerous on the drive up and back from the hill than it is actually skiing the hill. Also, in general, it doesn't make sense to live our lives in fear - I am not afraid of dying on the slopes for the same reason I don't fear being a victim of a terrorist attack or dying in a plane crash.

I do try to limit my chances of injury on the slopes - but this is different from worrying about catastrophic mortality or morbidity - this is a much higher risk and some ordinary precautions can make a difference here.

 

[benski]

That being said, without any numbers I do think its more dangerous on the drive up and back from the hill than it is actually skiing the hill. Also, in general, it doesn't make sense to live our lives in fear - I am not afraid of dying on the slopes for the same reason I don't fear being a victim of a terrorist attack or dying in a plane crash.

I do try to limit my chances of injury on the slopes - but this is different from worrying about catastrophic mortality or morbidity - this is a much higher risk and some ordinary precautions can make a difference here.

Fear is irrational though. Planes are safer than escalators but its normal to be afraid of planes but only "crazy people" fear escalators.

 

[mbedle]

Someone died at Stowe yesterday. Very Sad.

 

[CoolMike]

Fear is irrational though. Planes are safer than escalators but its normal to be afraid of planes but only "crazy people" fear escalators.

This is a good point about the irrational nature of fear - and one I hadn't considered. From a psychology standpoint I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done to alleviate irrational fear.

 

[Domeskier]

Planes are safer than escalators

I hate to be the person asking for a citation, but this seems false. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people use escalators on a daily basis and I can only recall having heard of maybe 2 or 3 escalator fatalities (including one tragic fall in NYC over the weekend). I would have thought escalators and elevators and those moving sidewalks at airports were among the safest modes of transportation. Maybe it's not crazy to be afraid of them after all.