| |
Re: Why only ski Europe?
john elgy wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:19:19 -0500, Dymphna
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ok, I went and looked at the biggest in Montana - Big Sky - here are
>>> some stats.
>>> Tried to get the pictures of different trails, but it doesn't seem
>>> to want to post.
>>>
>>> MOUNTAIN STATS
>>> *Elevation*
>>> Summit (Lone Peak) - 11,166 feet
>>> Base (Mountain Village) - 7,500 feet
>>> Base (Lone Moose) - 6,800 feet
>>
>>
>> So, less than 4500 ft, 1500m, of vertical. Not impressed.
>>
>>
>>> *Ski Terrain*
>>> 3,812 acres - 150 named runs covering over 85 miles on three
>>> separate mountains.
>>
>>
>> So, tiny then. Big resorts in the alps tend towards 500km of pistes,
>> that's to say 300 miles of groomed trails, and off-piste (ungroomed,
>> i.e. backcountry) runs aren't counted, even if they have a name.
>>
>>
>>> *Slope Difficulty*
>>> 20% expert
>>> 40% advanced
>>> 26% intermediate
>>> 14% beginner
>>
>>
>> And?
>>
>>
>>> *Longest Run*
>>> Liberty Bowl to Mountain Mall - 6 miles
>>
>>
>> Hehe. You really think that's long?
>>
>> Snipped the rest, as they're all irrelevant.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you actually think you're trying to advertise your
>> local hills, but you are certainly doing a good job of coming across
>> as a bit of a fool, who's clearly no idea what skiing in Europe is
>> about.
>>
> What are these feet things?
The things on the end of your legs?
|
|
|
| |
In message <45b08a5f$0$27404$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>
"pg" wrote:
>
> "Mike Clark" wrote in message
> news:cd7d41a74e.mrc7offline@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> | In message <45afb7c5$0$5106$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>
> | "pg" wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "Mike Clark" wrote in message
> | > news:b48d38a74e.mrc7offline@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> | [snip]
> | > |
> | > | I think the article you referenced on the snowsports website can
> give
> | > | some insight to this question of experience and safety.
> | > |
> | > | If you look at Table 1 of the article
> | > |
> | > | http://mysnowsports.com/News/article/sid=591.html
> | > |
>
>
>
> | I can accept that partially in that we can't define exactly the
> | objective level of classification, but it is still the fact that self
> | classification of ability defines groups who appear to show different
> | levels of risk. What it clearly shows is that those who regard
> | themselves as "Expert" are at more relative risk than those who regard
> | themselves as "Intermediate". How do you interpret the result if you
> | don't think it is possibly due to "risk compensation".
>
> Those who overestimate their abilities are more prone to accident,
> that's self evident. But the question is how much of a factor the
> wearing of helmets by experts would lead to a change in perception of
> risk.
On that specific question of what you regard as "experts" and "helmet
wearing" I don't think either of us have yet been able to find data that
addresses the specific point. However in other fields where it has been
looked at "experts" do "risk compensate".
> All I can glean from these results is that people who think they are
> good are more likely to fall over with or without helmets, and
> certainly not that people who -are- skilled skiers are taking extra
> risks as a result of wearing helmets.
Yes but despite the lack of objective criteria on ability in the
Norwegian study it is still likely that there will be a reasonable
correlation with subjective criteria. For example there must be some who
you would classify as expert in that study since it covered 19 of the 20
Norwegian resorts for the whole season and the sampling of controls was
simply every 10th person in the queue. Do you think those real "experts"
would be likely to self classify as beginner, intermediate, good or
expert? Equally do you think that those who were beginners would be more
or less likely to self classify as beginner, intermediate, good or
expert?
But more telling in that study is that the wearing of a helmet is
associated with risk taking. Self confessed risk takers are more likely
to wear a helmet, OR 1.4
>
> > >
> > > The expert skiers I was referring to are the ones that are on an
> > > entirely different level - not just in terms of skill, but in
> > > terms
> of
> | > awareness, experience, attitude.
> |
> | And I've agreed in other postings that it is possible that there is
> | such a subgroup who behave slightly differently. But such "experts"
> | are likely to be a tiny fraction of the total so most likely won't
> | have much of an impact on general statistics at a population level.
>
> True, but I have only ever introduced a point with respect to mountain
> dwellers and 'professionally' trained skiers to show that the 'risk
> compensation' factor doesn't - imv - apply across the board. Clearly
> without adequate education and training with respect to the risks
> involved, with or without a helmet, occasional skiers may be vulnerable
> to a small degree of increased confidence when they first wear a
> helmet - but possibly only for a limited period.
Do mountain dwellers and professionals have accidents? Are they
statistically at more or less risk than the general population?
That's the data that is needed to try to address the question.
>
> > > The majority ski well within the limits, according to the
> > > snow/weather/traffic conditions, except in competition/race
> > > training. Donning a helmet would not change this one iota.
> |
> | That is a possible hypothesis but is there data that addresses and
> | verifies it? Do these people generally wear helmets when not
> | practicing or racing?
>
> With respect to youngsters, the great majority. All of those in race
> clubs. Older generations living out here? Less so, but then they
> mostly cruise around the mountains a bit like you might take a stroll
> with the dog. Wear a helmet, and you're unlikely to suddenly break
> into a trot as a result, or start climbing trees.
What about putting on a transceiver? If a local or expert skier is asked
to go off piste would they be more likely to do so if they wore a
transceiver than if they had left it at home?
>
> > > I think we're talking in circles here. The issue is whether people
> > > adjust their behaviour in accordance with a perceived change in
> > > risk.
> |
> | Which at a population level there is plenty of evidence for.
>
> At population level? I've never suggested there wasn't, only referring
> to a small sector of the skiing public with reference to the wearing
> of helmets..
>
The only real way to address your specific point would be to randomly
select race skiers in competition and at different events to get some to
wear a helmet and others not to. Over a period of time you could collect
data on the relative performance with and without helmets.
> > > I pointed out that with respect to the *real* (not Slush 'n
> > > Rubble) experts, or with respect to knowledgeable
> > > mountain-dwelling locals, any change in behaviour would in my
> > > view be negligeable or non-existent.
> |
> | But the question is are local knowledgeable, skilled people at much
> | lower risk of injury? You might need to calculate risk per day of
> | skier exposure to compensate for increased time of exposure.
> |
> | There are clearly many more visitors than locals on the slopes, but
> | are the locals at much less risk per day of skiing than all the
> | visiting groups?
>
> On a risk per day level? I would think hugely so, if you compare like
> with like (leisure skiing).
Sorry but that is ducking the issue. The whole point about risk
compensation is that you aren't comparing like with like because of the
change in behaviour. As the skill of an individual increases they are
more likely to increase their exposure to risk. They don't devote the
same proportion of their time to exposure to a lower level of risk.
> There are lots of factors involved - so obviously generalising to an
> extent... all season round local skiers are fitter. They have
> extensive local knowledge - of the terrain, weather and snow
> conditions. Many have taken lessons, go skiing with instructors who
> are part of the family, clipped on their skis when they were 2 and
> haven't looked back since. They don't push it in the same way as
> visitors are sometimes tempted to do on their short and expensive trip
> to the snow. They can afford to wait for a few days after a heavy dump
> to head off piste. They understand the warning signs - a lot of
> visitors don't.
All these factors are relevant and interesting, but the bottom line is
do local people with local knowledge and expertise ever suffer death or
injury?
What is their actuarial risk?
Amongst ski-racers it is clear that the risk of injury is very high
since a high proportion of them retire for major medical treatment each
season. If that isn't an indication of risk taking behaviour I don't
know what is.
>
> It's more complicated with that (different age groups etc need to be
> studied), but that's my perception.
The Norwegian study did also look at age as a factor and shows that
13-20 year olds are at much higher risk than those over 20.
>
> A British BASI 1 instructor of my acquaintance based in 2 Alpes once
> put it something like this... 'Just as there's a very large gap in
> skill between a first week tourist beginner and me, there's at least
> as large a gap between me and a world class freerider or a Hermann
> Maier.' I just don't think a self-proclaimed 'advanced' week or two a
> year skier is using the same scale as the locals, who might consider
> themselves 'pretty good', but no more - they know what being expert
> really means..
>
> | > I suggested that with respect to a child who has never known
> | > anything else, he would not be taking increased risks when
> | > compared to a hypothetical identical child brought up to an
> | > identical skiing standard without ever wearing a helmet.
> |
> | Yes because they will have both reached a risk homeostasis that they
> | were comfortable with.
> |
> | The point about this that you don't seem to be accepting is that the
> | introduction of measures to improve safety don't seem to always
> | result in expected improvement in safety when you look at the data.
>
> You'll find that I've never claimed that, except with respect to ski
> racers, and to a lesser extent, lifelong mountain dwellers.
So according to you ski racers and lifelong mountain dwellers rarely
have accidents and rarely have injuries? They don't take risks and
always ski well within their abilities with plenty of safety margin?
Yet at the same time you've argued that all of them have close
acquaintances that have been injured or killed in the mountains. How do
you reconcile your apparent conflicting statements?
>
> > The question is whether there is any statistical evidence to test
> > this out with respect to injuries in skiing? Do you know whether
> > injuries amongst racers have decreased or increased over time and as
> > equipment has changed?
> |
> | From a quick search through the literature I've only found a few
> | studies but the one you have copied on the snowsport website
> | certainly seems to provide evidence consistent with "risk
> | compensation" amongst skiers
> | and boarders.
>
> I've not disputed that it doesn't play a role except with reference to
> one particular (small) group of skiers. I think the significance with
> respect to tourist skiers may be relatively small, possibly even
> negligible set alongside the potential benefits, especially if provided
> with better education and information, and after the passage of time -
> but that's another discussion.
>
Yes but from the Norwegian study it would appear that the group
suffering the lowest accident statistics are "intermediates". If you
educate them more then they become better skiers and the accident
statistics increase!
Mike
--
o/ \ // | ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\ // __o | / /, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`<,_ |__ > | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | corn computer user"
|
|