Accidents by the Numbers

[Scott P]

Since I'm geeking out on graphs, here's another one:
experience_2014-2015.png

I've always thought the number of inexperienced (defined as less than 3 years of experience) people is higher than the number of experienced people.

The number of experienced people might be higher (?), but generally, experienced people get out a lot more. At least with the beginners I know, few of them get out every weekend (or more).

Beginners and experienced climbers both have accidents, but often for different reasons. A beginner may be more prone to say, a navigational error on the standard route of Capitol, but many (though not all) experienced climbers tend to tackle harder and more dangerous routes.

In places like the Himalaya (hopefully this isn't too off topic), the death rates among experienced climbers is appalling and much more than that of guided climbers who tend to get the most criticism.

[AyeYo]

AyeYo wrote:
This is how statistics get read and used to draw incorrect conclusions.

(At least that's one way.) Total tangent for those who enjoy statistical arguments...from the book Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos:

A man who travels a lot was concerned about the possibility of a bomb on board his plane. He determined the probability of this, found it to be low but not low enough for him, so now he always travels with a bomb in his suitcase. He reasons that the probability of two bombs being on board would be infinitesimal.

I'm going to make good use of this story.

[kzm5355]

I've always thought the number of inexperienced (defined as less than 3 years of experience) people is higher than the number of experienced people.

If I remember correctly, many accidents reported by ANAM that involved experienced climbers were on trad routes, where experienced climbers made risky decisions due to their confidence in their ability. For example, simul-climbing to save time on easier sections, not placing enough protection, not tying stopper knots and rappelling off the rope. This data might be more useful if we could separate climbing from hiking. Maybe if we had this kind of data for 14ers only we would see a a different trend.

[kzm5355]

Maybe this helps complete the bigger picture...

Reported Climbing Accidents.jpg (474.35 KiB) Viewed 2852 times

[polar]

The number of experienced people might be higher (?), but generally, experienced people get out a lot more. At least with the beginners I know, few of them get out every weekend (or more).

That is a possible explanation. But, I also know tons of people with less than 3 years of experience who are so stoked on their newly discovered love for hiking/climbing/skiing that they are getting out there every possible day, while most of the more experienced people I know don't get to go out every weekend due to a variety of reasons. So I think it's hard to say overall which group gets out more often.

Beginners and experienced climbers both have accidents, but often for different reasons. A beginner may be more prone to say, a navigational error on the standard route of Capitol, but many (though not all) experienced climbers tend to tackle harder and more dangerous routes.

I don't disagree. My point is that some people seem to think that experience can mitigate all risks in the outdoors, especially those that are quick to point out the inexperience in accident victims. But the data shows that plenty of accidents happens to the experienced, experience alone is not a mitigation for all risks.

[EZsummits]

My point is that some people seem to think that experience can mitigate all risks in the outdoors, especially those that are quick to point out the inexperience in accident victims. But the data shows that plenty of accidents happens to the experienced, experience alone is not a mitigation for all risks.

Adding to this, many people tend to overestimate their abilities and underestimate luck. If we become experienced or successful it is easy to think that it was mostly due to our hard work and abilities and we can have a hard time seeing how luck has played a significant role.

Experienced/successful people are more likely to look at someone that had a mishap and say they were less experienced or they made a bad mistake. The irony is that many of those same people made similar mistakes as they were learning and luck was on their side. It may be more important to stay humble, appreciate how you have lucked out over the years and not overestimate your ability in the mountains.

There is a ton of good research on this by people like Daniel Kahneman: https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/lo ... 99162.html

[painless4u2]

Testosterone and decision making: "According to the study, the naturally-occurring steroids have been found to markedly increase the chances of risk-taking and audacious behaviour in men... that hormones testosterone and cortisol may be having a negative and potentially dangerous influence on the decision-making processes". Poor decisions and judgement may lead to disaster, whether in financial markets (as in the article) or in the wilderness. This would seem to suggest the younger male is prone to more accidents, regardless of experience.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filt ... sibly.html

[AyeYo]

My point is that some people seem to think that experience can mitigate all risks in the outdoors, especially those that are quick to point out the inexperience in accident victims. But the data shows that plenty of accidents happens to the experienced, experience alone is not a mitigation for all risks.

Adding to this, many people tend to overestimate their abilities and underestimate luck. If we become experienced or successful it is easy to think that it was mostly due to our hard work and abilities and we can have a hard time seeing how luck has played a significant role.

Bingo.

All you need to do is look at the primary causes data to see that just a hair under 60% of accidents are genuine accidents - i.e. slips, falls, and rockfall. This data completely blows up the idea that "experience" yields significant risk mitigation in the mountains. As I mentioned in the other thread, especially when it comes to hiking up Colorado 14ers, all of which require no technical skills, the level of skill required to hit a safety plateau is very low. Conrad Anker will be no more safe going up Capitol than the majority of people that attempt it every day.

[jrbren_vt]

My 2 cents, "experienced" is a somewhat vague term. I consider myself very experienced as a hiker in the east. As the 14er.com scoreboard says, not so much in CO. Especially on class 3 & above terrain. I consider myself a newbie there (but without the aspirations to climb many of these hills, my risk tolerance is lower then most other hikers/climbers I know, eg I am a mountain wimp). Also, I would not measure experience in number of years hiking alone. For me, I forget, and get out of shape easy. So if I go several months without hiking I need to relearn some things, as if I was a newbie in some ways all over again. Running helps, but is not by itself a substitute for mountain travel. "prepared" is another term I find someone vague that is often used in these discussions. Cheers ...

[polar]

My 2 cents, "experienced" is a somewhat vague term. I consider myself very experienced as a hiker in the east. As the 14er.com scoreboard says, not so much in CO. Especially on class 3 & above terrain. I consider myself a newbie there (but without the aspirations to climb many of these hills, my risk tolerance is lower then most other hikers/climbers I know, eg I am a mountain wimp). Also, I would not measure experience in number of years hiking alone. For me, I forget, and get out of shape easy. So if I go several months without hiking I need to relearn some things, as if I was a newbie in some ways all over again. Running helps, but is not by itself a substitute for mountain travel. "prepared" is another term I find someone vague that is often used in these discussions. Cheers ...

I completely agree. In fact I’ve had this conversation before, when people suggest beginners to find an experienced partner and learn from them, my question is how do you determine if someone is “experienced”? Is it by how many years they’ve been hiking/climbing? How hard they can climb? How many peaks they’ve done? It’s not an easy answer if you’re a beginner. That’s why I purposely ticked only two easiest 14ers as a joke.

I’ve seen climbers doing something wrong that “I’ve been doing it this way for 15 years”, they’re simply lucky that their mistake hasn’t caught up to them yet. I’ve climb with climbers who climbs much harder than I do, but can’t build an anchor I’d hang my water bottle from. And there are also people out there who poured their hearts into the outdoors right from the start, dirtbagging and climbing 300+ days out of the year, and probably gain more experience in one year than the weekend warriors gain in three years. However, I see the above as outliers in the general population. Most of us have to work, or have school, or have some obligation that keep us from going out there every single day. So most of us can only get out once or twice a week, we try to be as safe as we can, and most of us probably can’t make the same mistake for 15 years before it catches up to us. So when we’re looking at a large number of cases such as the data from ANAM, it’s easier to group people’s experience by the number of years they’ve been doing the activity. Even if it doesn't mean people with 3+ years of experience is really "experienced", that's how ANAM presented the data.

[Sean Nunn]

I don't claim any expertise in accident analysis, but one thing seems to be worth mentioning to me:

About 4500 accidents due to falling all total from the North American chart.
75 accidents due to lightning all total from same chart.
You are more likely to be injured from falling than from being struck by lightning.

So as easy as it is to say sitting in a quiet room here, one lesson that we can all try to remember is:

If you find yourself in a position above treeline and lightning is very close (flash-boom), try very hard to not panic and outrun the lightning. You are more likely to fall trying to descend too rapidly in an attempt to "outrun" the lightning (which is impossible anyway) than you are to actually be struck by lightning.

This is how statistics get read and used to draw incorrect conclusions. You're taking those two stats as totally isolated and in an absolute sense. Reality is more complex and there are factors at play that the statistics do not show. For example, you're probably "less likely" to die from a lightening strike on the whole simply because fewer people are exposed to lightening danger than to fall danger. The stats presented don't tell us, but it's probably a solid assumption. If you're on a ridge in a storm, your chances of dying in a lightening strike right then far exceed the average for climbers as a group. Likewise, while your probability of getting eaten by the Yeti are currently lower than your chances of winning Powerball, if he's right in front of you saying he's going to eat you, your chances likely much higher. You aren't going to stand there without a care in the world and say "eh, I have a better chance of winning Powerball. Nothing to worry about."

To think of it more simply, think of people that quote overall death probability for a national population and draw conclusions like "driving is more dangerous than mountain climbing - because your percentage chance of dying in a car crash is far higher than your chance of dying on a mountain." That IS what the stats say, but there's underlying information that isn't being taken into account - namely: nearly the entire adult population drives, and relatively very few climb mountains. Adjust the stats to include only people that actually partake in the given activity you'll likely find that mountain climbing is indeed far more dangerous than driving.

I understand what you are saying and I did not mean to imply that if a person is in a lightning situation that they are (4500 / 75 =) 60 times more likely to fall while descending than to be struck by lightning.

We obviously don't have specific statistics concerning the state of mind or panic surrounding everyone who has been injured due to a fall in the mountains, or how many were under duress due to impending weather. However, I think it is still fair to say that the risk of falling trying to "outrun" lightning is much greater than the decreased risk of being struck by successfully "outrunning" the lightning. That was the point I was trying to make.

[polar]

We obviously don't have specific statistics concerning the state of mind or panic surrounding everyone who has been injured due to a fall in the mountains, or how many were under duress due to impending weather. However, I think it is still fair to say that the risk of falling trying to "outrun" lightning is much greater than the decreased risk of being struck by successfully "outrunning" the lightning. That was the point I was trying to make.

I think you made an excellent point even if we don't have statistics to support it. Here's a recent incident that's similar what you're talking about:
http://crestedbuttenews.com/2017/08/cb- ... -mountain/