|
petro
Apr 6, 2004, 3:23 PM
Post #26 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 176
|
Statistics don't lie.
Only Liars do statistics...
Sorry, it had to be said, there was a force making me do it. It was like a voice screaming in the black desert night, coating my world like the desert varnish. Burning and tormenting my soul with it's repeated cry... "Who gives a flying F, put you calculators down, borrow some tape from your glasses and build some gloves, sack up and climb" Don't be polluting my climbing experience with all your voodo hooboogeebie math.
|
|
|
|
|
hkclimb
Apr 6, 2004, 3:38 PM
Post #27 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2003
Posts: 5
|
The 5000+ and 4000+ numbers are probably normalize to 100,000 participants. So the interpretation is probably like 5 or 4 out of a hundred people who climb 8000meter peaks (or whatever the number of participants). I am sure there aren't 100,000 people queuing up to climb 8000m peak each year.
In reply to: This information is tantalizing... it give you a taste of what we've all wanted, but doesn't go all the way. Based on this info, I THINK climbing is fairly safe (I know from personal experience it is). But the very first stat, "- Mountaineering (8,000 meter peaks); 5,000+ Accidents and 4,000+ Fatalities" Who here has heard of 4,000 people dying in mountaineering accidents??? (Like someone said, it has to be "per year" or something.) Seems like mountaineering deaths are fairly well reported, but based on what I've seen and read in the last few years, I'd say the death count is way lower than that. Anyone? |
|
|
|
|
drrock
Apr 6, 2004, 3:40 PM
Post #28 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2003
Posts: 610
|
edit
|
|
|
|
|
chugach001
Apr 6, 2004, 4:30 PM
Post #29 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2002
Posts: 311
|
Alright, I didn't post this to get roughed up on the subject. It's not my data so I can't defend it. I posted this only because it is the best information available not because it is flawless. After years of people posting; "I think" and "I feel" responses to a quantifiable subject, I thought it would be a good idea to throw some numbers out there.
On 8,000 meter data...my best guess (as someone else said) is that it's
per 100,000 participants. Also, no time frame as others have suggested. The author said; he used the "magic of extrapolation". But everyone does this because data is not centrally reported and cleansed. Take Denali for example, the recent yearly attempts are around 1,000. Well, obviously, there have not been 100,000 attempts from which to draw true numbers, but you can take the results from 10 years and multiply them up to 100,000. Ditto 8,000 meter peaks. Then you compare that to Rainier which can produce 100,000 attempts in 10 years and driving which can do that in 10 miniutes.
Then, (and this is where the biggest variances will be hiding) are we looking at participants or attempts? He said participants but knowing how some of the data is collected, I doubt it. Likely the driving data is total # of US drivers divided into accidents and deaths. For Rainier and Denali, I'll venture to say that he used NPS data which shows attempts and not individual climbers (such as guides who do multiple attempts per year). in 1993 There was no one collecting data on individual climbers of Denali.
Also between the Gunks and Smith. My guess is that the Gunks collects data better and they have so much traffic that it dilutes the accident numbers. But just my guess.
Cracklover - I would love to see some insurance tables if you can find them.
Again, I'm just trying to advance the seemingly endless posts of pure conjecture on the relative safety of climbing with some data that I found.
Cheers,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Apr 6, 2004, 4:40 PM
Post #30 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
Jeff, I wasn't trying to beat you up (although that seems to be the second favorite sport around here). I applaud you for trying to advance this discussion, but unfortunately, the info you've injected is still incomplete and "extrapolated," and therefore, only slightly better than "I think I heard someone say once..." Insurance tables would be great, but "I think I heard someone say once" that those tables were kind of ill-informed, in that they lumped mountaineering in with single-pitch cragging, bouldering and pretty much any kind of hiking on steep ground.
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Apr 6, 2004, 4:58 PM
Post #31 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
The Gunks is also much older. When was the first fatality and the second? I'd bet that if you went back and looked at early stats, people were safer then, or maybe they actually knew what they are doing, or maybe it was because they didn't jump on (read lead) 5.10 after a year? Rock climbing fatalities are on the rise, along with the number climber use days, sure, that only makes sense. I still think there is more to it. I'd bet that per 100,000 climbs there are more fatalities today than there used to be.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 6, 2004, 5:17 PM
Post #32 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: - Skydiving; 30 and 24 Umm... People survive skydiving accidents? How?
How soon we forget. Haven't you ever watched Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer?
Bumbles Bounce!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
david.yount
Deleted
Apr 6, 2004, 7:01 PM
Post #33 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Accidents and Deaths per 100,000 participants, US only:
- Mountaineering (8,000 meter peaks); 5,000+ Accidents and 4,000+ Fatalities
- Paragliding; 5,900+ accidents and 400+ fatalities
- BASE Jumping; 5,000 and 300
- Mountaineering (Denali); 1,368 and 398
- Mountaineering (general); 602 and 146
- Climbing (all types, inc. rock climbing); 320 and 45
- Mountaineering (Mt. Rainier); 341 and 24
- Skydiving; 30 and 24
- Hang Gliding; 500+ and 22
- Automobiles (passenger and driver); 2,100 and 19.1
- Mountaineering (N. Cascades); 98 and 18.6
- Rock Climbing (Yosemite population); 400 and 18.3
- Boating (all types); 500 and 14.5
- Rock Climbing (Smith Rock); 250 and 10
- Rock Climbing in general; 198 and 8
- Caving; 200 and 6
- Surfing; 154 and 4
- Diving; (scuba and recreational) 70 and 2.5
- Swimming; 170 and 2.5
- Boating; (pleasure [?]) 125 and 2.5
- Rock Climbing (Eldorado Canyon); 27 and 2
- Skiing; 1,440 and 2
- Bicycling; 1,049 and 1.7
- Rock Climbing (Shawangunks); 100 and 1
- Hiking; 50 and 0.5
- Football; 2,857 and 0.05
- Commercial Airline transportation; 1 and 0.05
- Lightning Strikes; 0.015 and 0.0016
To add fractions the denominators should be the same. Then, simply add the numerators together.
3/16 + 1/16 = 4/16
3/16 + 1/16 <> 4/32 ( the symbol <> means “not equal”)
to wit:
398/100,000 + 24/100,000 = 422/100,00
398/100,000 + 24/100,000 <> 422/200,000
To calculate the chance of death from participating in the list of activities, just add the fatality numbers together. Since we don’t have specific descriptive information about what constitutes an ‘experience’ I will make the assumption that an ‘experience’ lasts one day. This is what I’ve always seen in actuarial charts (statisticians who compute insurance risks and premiums).
If you climb at Smith Rock you have a 10 in 100,000 chance of a fatal experience during that day; you don’t have a 10 in 100,000 chance for each single pitch sport climb you attempt. If you are surfing you have a 4 in 100,000 chance of a fatal experience for the day. You do not have a 4 in 100,000 chance of a fatal experience for each wave you catch. This is my assumption.
Mt Rainier has 24 fatalities per 100,000 experiences and Smith Rock has 10 fatalities per 100,000 experiences. If I climb Rainier one day and then drive 6 hours south and climb at Smith Rock the next day my total chance of a fatal experience is 24/100000 + 10/100000, or 34 in 100,000 chance. But since most Rainier attempts involve at least 2 days on the mountain and most of the ‘best’ routes involve a minimum of 3 days, my chances increase proportionally. A 3-day attempt on Rainier would expose me to 24 + 24 + 24 in a 100,000, or 72 in 100,000 chance.
Egotistical curiosity prompted me to calculate my chance of a fatal experience in a year of my lifestyle:
Activity :: chance per 100,000 :: my days per year
Skydiving 24 x 0.5
Auto 19.1 x 104
Mountaineering North Cascades 18.6 x 12
Boating all types 14.5 x 4
Rock Climbing Smith Rocks 10 x 6
Rock Climbing General 8 x 40
Surfing 4 x 2
Skiing 2 x 6
Bicycling 1.7 x 60
Rock Climbing Gunks 1 x 8
Hiking 0.5 x 15
Commercial Airline 0.05 x 8
811 in 100,000 for everything besides Auto
1986 in 100,000 for Auto
I drive or ride in a car twice a week, which I believe is far less than average; yet, my chance of a fatal experience in one year is about 2.5 more likely by car than by all the combined sports I enjoy from this list.
My total chance of a fatal experience in one year based on this list is 2,797 in 100,000 which can be restated as 2.8 percent.
The time it will take for me to have 100 percent chance of a fatal experience can be calculated by dividing my annual percentage into 100 percent.
100 / 2.8 which equals 36 years.
This list, along with my reasonable assumption, in addition to gross unknowns and pervasive fundamental assumptions predicts if I continue my lifestyle I will definitely have a fatal experience within 36 years.
I like to think I am safer than most, above statistics. But my 80 days of motorcycling likely overshadow everything else I do, statistically.
David.
|
|
|
|
|
craig_climber
Apr 6, 2004, 7:18 PM
Post #34 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 71
|
Well, I'm only going to say one thing. Statistics will not keep me from climbing. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Apr 6, 2004, 7:56 PM
Post #35 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
Does it make a difference if you're wearing spandex and climbing sport? What if you only wear carharts and climb trad with home-made gear? Does that increase your chances of injury or death? :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
jicex
Apr 8, 2004, 3:37 PM
Post #36 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 2
|
In other words, if you climb Yosemite 100,000 times you get to die 18.3 time.
|
|
|
|
|
urban_rocker
Apr 8, 2004, 4:08 PM
Post #37 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 58
|
Hey,
this is how dangerous climbing is;
Injuries & Accidents; Topics; 1107
Posts; 13203
Bouldering Forum; Topics; 1006
Posts; 14007
Slacklining; Topics; 274
Posts; 2138
Aid Climbing; Topics; 1013
Posts; 13336
Trad Climbing; Topics; 1002
Posts; 19079
Indoor Gyms; Topics; 738
Posts; 8338
Alpine & Ice; Topics; 836
Posts; 7757
Technique & Training; Topics; 1063
Posts; 14227
Climbing Photography; Topics; 508
Posts; 5110
Escalada en Español; Topics; 195
Posts;1224
Competition Climbing; Topics; 250
Posts; 1553
The Ladies Room; Topics; 375
Posts; 6992
The time now is Thu Apr 08, 2004 3:52 pm
and there are many more forums with less posts than the accidents forum...
Laters Rob
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Apr 8, 2004, 4:14 PM
Post #38 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
but the ladies room has been up for less than third the time I&I are up.
so what does that tell us???
youre still far more probably to be talked to death by a woman than to die climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Apr 8, 2004, 4:32 PM
Post #39 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
In reply to: youre still far more probably to be talked to death by a woman than to die climbing.
Hey! I think I met that woman! I might have lived with her for several years, but that I'm trying to block.
|
|
|
|
|
maww
Apr 8, 2004, 5:31 PM
Post #40 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 3253
|
In reply to: but the ladies room has been up for less than third the time I&I are up. so what does that tell us??? youre still far more probably to be talked to death by a woman than to die climbing.
As a woman, I take offense...ahh, who am I kidding?! No I don't. :) Most of us will talk way too much. Sorry guys. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
a_scender
Apr 8, 2004, 5:45 PM
Post #41 of 41
(6379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
I thought that everyone has a 100% chance of death. :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
