|
jt512
Mar 3, 2011, 8:13 AM
Post #26 of 40
(3172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Guran wrote: Well... Statistics might be misleading.
What?! No way!
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 3, 2011, 8:17 AM
Post #27 of 40
(3171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
camhead wrote: Guran wrote: milesenoell wrote: I've been wondering, does anybody know how aid compares to free climbing in terms of A&I rates? Aid feels scarier than free to me, but frankly I have no idea if it really is any more dangerous. Anybody know? Well... Statistics might be misleading. Here's the ting. For sport climbing, the harder the route the safer the climber since harder generally equals steeper and less featured rock which equals less risk of slamming into something when you fall. For trad climbing it depends. Some venture into the poorly protected routes in micronuts and taped hook territory. Others prefer to go for steep cracks where the pro is still good even if the route is hard. But for aid (as well as ice and alpine), "harder" always equals "more dangerous". Without taking risks you'll never get above the weekend warrior level. If you are content with that, and stay focused, aid is not inherently dangerous. If you have ambitions, realize you will be betting your life. Ok, then– as the video I posted originally asks, I will ask you the same question: How many hard aid climbers have died from doing hard aid? I'm not talking about rappel accidents, objective hazards like rockfall or weather, or anything like that. I mean, how many hard aid climbers have died when their hook placement, or bubblegum copperhead, or rp string blew out, and they cratered? If hard aid is really more dangerous, there should be more fatalities, right?
Wrong.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Mar 3, 2011, 11:19 AM
Post #28 of 40
(3151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
camhead wrote: If hard aid is really more dangerous, there should be more fatalities, right?
Flying is more dangerous than driving, so aviation should have more fatalities than automobiles, right?
|
|
|
|
|
stagg54
Mar 3, 2011, 12:00 PM
Post #29 of 40
(3146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 190
|
as soon as I saw the title, that was the first thing I thought of.
|
|
|
|
|
skiclimb
Mar 3, 2011, 3:40 PM
Post #30 of 40
(3123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2004
Posts: 1938
|
healyje wrote: camhead wrote: If hard aid is really more dangerous, there should be more fatalities, right? Flying is more dangerous than driving, so aviation should have more fatalities than automobiles, right?
By nature flying has more inherent risks than driving. (the exception being the number of others in the immediate vicinity.) Flying is safer because because the risk causes people to use much higher levels of precautions. Better engines,much more training, regular inspections, checklists, air traffic control..on and on.
This is why statistic can lie. Often riskier activities cause less fatalities due to the fact that those who engage in high risks take even higher precautions. Risk also tends to focus the mind making it much less likely to be distracted or make a mistake.
(This post was edited by skiclimb on Mar 3, 2011, 3:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 3, 2011, 3:53 PM
Post #31 of 40
(3116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
healyje wrote: camhead wrote: If hard aid is really more dangerous, there should be more fatalities, right? Flying is more dangerous than driving, so aviation should have more fatalities than automobiles, right?
Flying is only more dangerous if you're no longer flying (i.e. - you're falling).
I think many people believe that safe means the third definition only (see below), but really the first two definitions are just as important.
Obviously, the usage of the word safe is highly subjective and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Dictionary.com: Safe
–adjective
1.
secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk: a safe place.
2.
free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk: to arrive safe and sound.
3.
involving little or no risk of mishap, error, etc.: a safe estimate.
4.
dependable or trustworthy: a safe guide.
5.
careful to avoid danger or controversy: a safe player; a safe play.
6.
denied the chance to do harm; in secure custody: a criminal safe in jail.
7.
Baseball .
a.
reaching base without being put out: safe on the throw to first base.
b.
making it possible to reach a base: a safe slide.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Mar 3, 2011, 4:51 PM
Post #32 of 40
(3096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
How many people are really out there doing hard, life risking aid climbing? The few that are certainly know what they're doing.
Flying small planes is undoubtedly more dangerous than driving. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I know two pilots who have been killed. Practically everyone I know drives, and no one remotely close to me has ever been killed in a car accident. Yeah yeah I'm a single data point but I feel pretty confident saying this. First time I flew, I thought this isn't so hard. Then I tried my first landing.....you'd better be good at multitasking and be a quick thinker if you want to live to be an old pilot. Problems cascade very rapidly.
(This post was edited by dynosore on Mar 3, 2011, 4:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ianmeister89
Mar 4, 2011, 1:07 AM
Post #33 of 40
(3038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2009
Posts: 140
|
dynosore wrote: Flying small planes is undoubtedly more dangerous than driving.
I don't buy that.
-Ian
|
|
|
|
|
highlander
Mar 4, 2011, 1:40 AM
Post #34 of 40
(3034 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 52
|
Funny how most of you can have an opinion on hard aid, and how dangerous it is when you have never done it. Go climb some new wave A4-A5 and report back. There have been several deaths from ropes being cut (jugging), head trama, and broken limbs from big falls hitting ledges, swinging into corners. Not saying its any more dangerous than an r rated or x rated free climbs, difference is some times on an aid pitch there are some things out of your control like clipping jingus fixed gear (heads, dowels, machine heads).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 4, 2011, 2:04 AM
Post #35 of 40
(3026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ianmeister89 wrote: dynosore wrote: Flying small planes is undoubtedly more dangerous than driving. I don't buy that. -Ian
You should.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 4, 2011, 2:06 AM
Post #36 of 40
(3025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
highlander wrote: Funny how most of you can have an opinion on hard aid, and how dangerous it is when you have never done it. Go climb some new wave A4-A5 and report back.
You don't need to have done hard aid to understand that it is dangerous.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Mar 4, 2011, 3:58 PM
Post #37 of 40
(2980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
ianmeister89 wrote: dynosore wrote: Flying small planes is undoubtedly more dangerous than driving. I don't buy that. -Ian
I was so sure of this intuitively that I didn't even bother to look up the stats. But since you called me out I did. Depending on whom you believe, small planes are 8-20x more deadly per exposure hour. I'd call that significantly more dangerous. Ever actually piloted a plane? Problems cascade in a hurry, not nearly as forgiving as driving a car.
(This post was edited by dynosore on Mar 4, 2011, 3:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
desertdude420
Mar 4, 2011, 5:21 PM
Post #38 of 40
(2959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 294
|
Due to the typical exposure and the clusters-fux of gear/systems to deal with, aid climbing sure does FEEL more dangerous!
|
|
|
|
|
ClimbSoHigh
Mar 4, 2011, 8:46 PM
Post #39 of 40
(2927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 28, 2008
Posts: 208
|
They are both dangerous in there own ways. Saying one is more dangerous than the other is just a pissing match.
|
|
|
|
|
|
