The Official Random...
 
Notifications

The Official Random Thoughts Thread  

Page 92 / 96
  RSS

SG Boarder
(@sgboarder)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 211
21/01/2020 11:47 pm  
Posted by: @pow_hnd

Avalanche fatality here over the weekend. 

Airbag deployed, still buried 6ft under.

 

2nd death like this here in the last 3 years.

 

Airbags aren’t what MFGs make them out to be. 

In general I agree with that (no matter what Bruce Tremper says about them - he has changed his tune on them several times and his grasp on statistics in general is pretty dodgy at best).

But this specific incident tells us nothing about the (lack of) effectiveness of airbags: The guy was buried >10' feet deep because of the terrain trap. Unclear whether he floated while in the slide (also note that he was on snowmobile which could have pushed him down), but there is no way that an airbag can help you once you've come to a stop at the bottom and more snow and debris is piling on top of you. And no airbag manufacturer would make that claim.

This post was modified 1 month ago 3 times by SG Boarder

matty liked
ReplyQuote
ivo
 ivo
(@ivo-zlatinovgmail-com)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 113
21/01/2020 11:48 pm  

@pow_hnd

I think of airbags as just a thing that may, but is far from guaranteed to, help. 


matty liked
ReplyQuote
drjcv
(@drjcv)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1092
22/01/2020 6:28 am  
Posted by: @yukiotokosama
Posted by: @pow_hnd

Avalanche fatality here over the weekend. 

Airbag deployed, still buried 6ft under.

 

2nd death like this here in the last 3 years.

 

Airbags aren’t what MFGs make them out to be. 

Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, this article from Bruce Temper is a pretty good read on the effectiveness of airbags.

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/15943

The only 100% way to avoid dying in an avalanche is to avoid avalanche terrain completely. Yes, the 97% success  rate marketed by the manufacturers is misleading. That said, there is empirical evidence of increased survivability when using an airbag.

It should be a criminal offense to use the term "empirical evidence" to describe the methods and data used to come to these conclusions. IMO any manufacturer or endorsement of these stupid fucking toys should be prosecuted for promoting the idea these things do anything to save lives. Its just about profit. gross.


ReplyQuote
airblaster503
(@air-blaster503)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 71
22/01/2020 6:49 am  

The things with airbags, helmets, and other equipment is it gives people a false sense of security which can often lead to making decisions that probably wouldn't be made otherwise.  Riding high consequence terrain with a terrain trap is just stupid, thinking you're going to have a 97% success rate of getting bailed out by a bag on your bag is even dumber.  And factor in the more people going into the backcountry that have little to no training, surprised it isn't happening more often.


drjcv and psklt liked
ReplyQuote
c.fuzzy
(@c-fuzzy)
Cold Chillin' Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1552
22/01/2020 7:47 am  
Posted by: @air-blaster503

The things with airbags, helmets, and other equipment is it gives people a false sense of security which can often lead to making decisions that probably wouldn't be made otherwise.  Riding high consequence terrain with a terrain trap is just stupid, thinking you're going to have a 97% success rate of getting bailed out by a bag on your bag is even dumber.  And factor in the more people going into the backcountry that have little to no training, surprised it isn't happening more often.

I go back and forth on the false sense of security leading to poor decision making.

It seems logical enough..

but an ignorant or unaware decision is made regardless of equipment by the fact of the ignorance. 

To say that an informed and aware decision was made, but disregarded due to false sense of security, to me again implies ignorance.

For example, I wear a seatbelt and it makes me feel safer and more secure, but my driving doesn't become more unsafe because of it. Nor do I drive more carefully when I'm not wearing a seatbelt. 

In my mind it makes more sense to say the driving force behind risk taking actions (skiing, snowboarding, sledding, etc.) is propelling the action regardless of precaution.

So... a risky driver is going to be a risky driver, regardless of if they put on a seatbelt or not. 

If one is disciplined enough to not take undue risk then this isn't an issue. But then what it comes down to is if one is a skilled enough to mitigate the undue risk. And if not, then if one has enough luck.

Of course, one can still have all the education, awareness, and discipline... and not have enough luck.


Elektropow and matty liked
ReplyQuote
pow_hnd
(@pow_hnd)
Wasangeles Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 579
22/01/2020 8:01 am  
Posted by: @yukiotokosama
Posted by: @pow_hnd

Avalanche fatality here over the weekend. 

Airbag deployed, still buried 6ft under.

 

2nd death like this here in the last 3 years.

 

Airbags aren’t what MFGs make them out to be. 

Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, this article from Bruce Temper is a pretty good read on the effectiveness of airbags.

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/15943

The only 100% way to avoid dying in an avalanche is to avoid avalanche terrain completely. Yes, the 97% success  rate marketed by the manufacturers is misleading. That said, there is empirical evidence of increased survivability when using an airbag.

Yes, I'm quite a ware of that article, and have has many face to face talks with Bruce.

He doesn't wear an airbag. Never once in 15 years of running into him on the skin track, which happened quite a lot, we liked to go to the same areas, did I ever see him with an airbag. ( yes he said t the time he believes in them, but there was politics behind it, with airbag MFGs fiscally supporting UAC and Bruce being an employee ( the director actually ) at the time) 

They maybe add  2-3% more of a survivabilty rate in your typical NA terrain, but even then, that was  assuming they ( deployed airbag ) keeps you on top. Since that blog post was written, we have had two deployed airbags where the victims were buried 6ft under, and one where the person was buried 1.5ft under, so I would say there is now more empirical evidence that would skew the effectiveness of airbags towards non-success rate side of things. So more data has proven them to be even less effective than even though of when Bruce wrote the article, even in a best case scenario.

Only the person who was 1.5ft under survived, and that person would have most likely survived even with out the bag, she was seen being buried by a large group of people all with beacons, probes and shovels, and they were all within a couple of hundred meters and were at her burial site within moments, she sustained no trauma, so as Bruce pointed out in his article she is one of the scenarios where the airbag didn't really do much to change her outcome, and even at that it didn't keep her on top. 

As I stated, Airbags are not what they seem. 

 

 

 

 


ReplyQuote
c.fuzzy
(@c-fuzzy)
Cold Chillin' Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1552
22/01/2020 8:23 am  
Posted by: @pow_hnd
Posted by: @yukiotokosama
Posted by: @pow_hnd

Avalanche fatality here over the weekend. 

Airbag deployed, still buried 6ft under.

 

2nd death like this here in the last 3 years.

 

Airbags aren’t what MFGs make them out to be. 

Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, this article from Bruce Temper is a pretty good read on the effectiveness of airbags.

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/15943

The only 100% way to avoid dying in an avalanche is to avoid avalanche terrain completely. Yes, the 97% success  rate marketed by the manufacturers is misleading. That said, there is empirical evidence of increased survivability when using an airbag.

Yes, I'm quite a ware of that article, and have has many face to face talks with Bruce.

He doesn't wear an airbag. Never once in 15 years of running into him on the skin track, which happened quite a lot, we liked to go to the same areas, did I ever see him with an airbag. ( yes he said t the time he believes in them, but there was politics behind it, with airbag MFGs fiscally supporting UAC and Bruce being an employee ( the director actually ) at the time) 

They maybe add  2-3% more of a survivabilty rate in your typical NA terrain, but even then, that was  assuming they ( deployed airbag ) keeps you on top. Since that blog post was written, we have had two deployed airbags where the victims were buried 6ft under, and one where the person was buried 1.5ft under, so I would say there is now more empirical evidence that would skew the effectiveness of airbags towards non-success rate side of things. So more data has proven them to be even less effective than even though of when Bruce wrote the article, even in a best case scenario.

Only the person who was 1.5ft under survived, and that person would have most likely survived even with out the bag, she was seen being buried by a large group of people all with beacons, probes and shovels, and they were all within a couple of hundred meters and were at her burial site within moments, she sustained no trauma, so as Bruce pointed out in his article she is one of the scenarios where the airbag didn't really do much to change her outcome, and even at that it didn't keep her on top. 

As I stated, Airbags are not what they seem. 

 

 

 

 

Don't airbags work based on the Brazil Nut Effect? Just because conditions don't meet the requirements for it to work in every instance doesn't mean it doesn't work. No? 


matty liked
ReplyQuote
drjcv
(@drjcv)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1092
22/01/2020 8:39 am  
Posted by: @c-fuzzy
Posted by: @air-blaster503

The things with airbags, helmets, and other equipment is it gives people a false sense of security which can often lead to making decisions that probably wouldn't be made otherwise.  Riding high consequence terrain with a terrain trap is just stupid, thinking you're going to have a 97% success rate of getting bailed out by a bag on your bag is even dumber.  And factor in the more people going into the backcountry that have little to no training, surprised it isn't happening more often.

I go back and forth on the false sense of security leading to poor decision making.

It seems logical enough..

but an ignorant or unaware decision is made regardless of equipment by the fact of the ignorance. 

To say that an informed and aware decision was made, but disregarded due to false sense of security, to me again implies ignorance.

For example, I wear a seatbelt and it makes me feel safer and more secure, but my driving doesn't become more unsafe because of it. Nor do I drive more carefully when I'm not wearing a seatbelt. 

In my mind it makes more sense to say the driving force behind risk taking actions (skiing, snowboarding, sledding, etc.) is propelling the action regardless of precaution.

So... a risky driver is going to be a risky driver, regardless of if they put on a seatbelt or not. 

If one is disciplined enough to not take undue risk then this isn't an issue. But then what it comes down to is if one is a skilled enough to mitigate the undue risk. And if not, then if one has enough luck.

Of course, one can still have all the education, awareness, and discipline... and not have enough luck.

this analogy doesn't hold up. no one is deciding to drive/not drive based on the risk of having/not having a seatbelt, but people sure as fuck are deciding to ride with supposed "mitigated risk" because of the airbag. their existence is predicated on its supposed mitigation of risk.


ReplyQuote
pow_hnd
(@pow_hnd)
Wasangeles Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 579
22/01/2020 8:42 am  
Posted by: @c-fuzzy
Posted by: @pow_hnd
Posted by: @yukiotokosama
Posted by: @pow_hnd

Avalanche fatality here over the weekend. 

Airbag deployed, still buried 6ft under.

 

2nd death like this here in the last 3 years.

 

Airbags aren’t what MFGs make them out to be. 

Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, this article from Bruce Temper is a pretty good read on the effectiveness of airbags.

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/15943

The only 100% way to avoid dying in an avalanche is to avoid avalanche terrain completely. Yes, the 97% success  rate marketed by the manufacturers is misleading. That said, there is empirical evidence of increased survivability when using an airbag.

Yes, I'm quite a ware of that article, and have has many face to face talks with Bruce.

He doesn't wear an airbag. Never once in 15 years of running into him on the skin track, which happened quite a lot, we liked to go to the same areas, did I ever see him with an airbag. ( yes he said t the time he believes in them, but there was politics behind it, with airbag MFGs fiscally supporting UAC and Bruce being an employee ( the director actually ) at the time) 

They maybe add  2-3% more of a survivabilty rate in your typical NA terrain, but even then, that was  assuming they ( deployed airbag ) keeps you on top. Since that blog post was written, we have had two deployed airbags where the victims were buried 6ft under, and one where the person was buried 1.5ft under, so I would say there is now more empirical evidence that would skew the effectiveness of airbags towards non-success rate side of things. So more data has proven them to be even less effective than even though of when Bruce wrote the article, even in a best case scenario.

Only the person who was 1.5ft under survived, and that person would have most likely survived even with out the bag, she was seen being buried by a large group of people all with beacons, probes and shovels, and they were all within a couple of hundred meters and were at her burial site within moments, she sustained no trauma, so as Bruce pointed out in his article she is one of the scenarios where the airbag didn't really do much to change her outcome, and even at that it didn't keep her on top. 

As I stated, Airbags are not what they seem. 

 

 

 

 

Don't airbags work based on the Brazil Nut Effect? Just because conditions don't meet the requirements for it to work in every instance doesn't mean it doesn't work. No? 

Sure. 

But the Brazil nut Effect is just a conditions/requirement scenario for it to keep you on top.

My beef ( aside from the fact the don't always keep you on top and MFGs would like consumers to belive )  is the subconscious decision making of people when they strap the airbag on. 

You have to add to that the human element of decision making which could very well be influenced by having an airbag on an individuals back. Then that can get even more complicated by herd mentality. ( now you've got 3 people with airbags and those airbags are subconsciously effecting the decision making process of all those people ) and herd mentality is a huge killer... 

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone say, I wouldn't have gone out that day without my airbag, or it's a line I won't ride unless I have my airbag...  That is the wrong way of thinking or making a risk assessment, but it's what people do. 

Then, even when they do what they are supposed to do ( keep you on top) , airbags still have in most cases little to no chance to keeping you alive. 

Especially in NA terrain.

Here's where we had a Forecaster killed, bag deployed, did nothing to save his life, it kept him on top, but he died of trauma because he was in NA terrain. 

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanche/16589


psklt liked
ReplyQuote
drjcv
(@drjcv)
Member Forum Superstar!
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1092
22/01/2020 8:49 am  
Posted by: @c-fuzzy
Posted by: @pow_hnd
Posted by: @yukiotokosama
Posted by: @pow_hnd

Avalanche fatality here over the weekend. 

Airbag deployed, still buried 6ft under.

 

2nd death like this here in the last 3 years.

 

Airbags aren’t what MFGs make them out to be. 

Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, this article from Bruce Temper is a pretty good read on the effectiveness of airbags.

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/15943

The only 100% way to avoid dying in an avalanche is to avoid avalanche terrain completely. Yes, the 97% success  rate marketed by the

 

 

 

 

Don't airbags work based on the Brazil Nut Effect? Just because conditions don't meet the requirements for it to work in every instance doesn't mean it doesn't work. No? 

lolwut


ReplyQuote
c.fuzzy
(@c-fuzzy)
Cold Chillin' Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1552
22/01/2020 9:12 am  
Posted by: @drjcv
Posted by: @c-fuzzy
Posted by: @air-blaster503

The things with airbags, helmets, and other equipment is it gives people a false sense of security which can often lead to making decisions that probably wouldn't be made otherwise.  Riding high consequence terrain with a terrain trap is just stupid, thinking you're going to have a 97% success rate of getting bailed out by a bag on your bag is even dumber.  And factor in the more people going into the backcountry that have little to no training, surprised it isn't happening more often.

I go back and forth on the false sense of security leading to poor decision making.

It seems logical enough..

but an ignorant or unaware decision is made regardless of equipment by the fact of the ignorance. 

To say that an informed and aware decision was made, but disregarded due to false sense of security, to me again implies ignorance.

For example, I wear a seatbelt and it makes me feel safer and more secure, but my driving doesn't become more unsafe because of it. Nor do I drive more carefully when I'm not wearing a seatbelt. 

In my mind it makes more sense to say the driving force behind risk taking actions (skiing, snowboarding, sledding, etc.) is propelling the action regardless of precaution.

So... a risky driver is going to be a risky driver, regardless of if they put on a seatbelt or not. 

If one is disciplined enough to not take undue risk then this isn't an issue. But then what it comes down to is if one is a skilled enough to mitigate the undue risk. And if not, then if one has enough luck.

Of course, one can still have all the education, awareness, and discipline... and not have enough luck.

this analogy doesn't hold up. no one is deciding to drive/not drive based on the risk of having/not having a seatbelt, but people sure as fuck are deciding to ride with supposed "mitigated risk" because of the airbag. their existence is predicated on its supposed mitigation of risk.

It's not a perfect analogy. okay. But my point is...

Their decision to ride at all is based upon the desire to take undue risk. That's what every single one of us does every time we ride. It's an unnecessary risk, regardless of in bounds or out of bounds. Helmet or no helmet. Airbag or no airbag. 

What I'm saying is that the driving force behind the risk taking isn't a false sense of security. The driving force is the desire to take a risk and get a thrill... and I don't know if I think that is unconsciously exacerbated by the use risk mitigating equipment, or unconsciously evaporates without it.

It's an ignorant decision either way. The underlying drive to take things to the edge for a thrill exists independent of the protection mechanisms. 

Before all the safety equipment existed people were doing this shit...

And no one is waiting for the risk to be eliminated to get their risk taking thrills either.


matty liked
ReplyQuote
c.fuzzy
(@c-fuzzy)
Cold Chillin' Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1552
22/01/2020 9:18 am  
Posted by: @drjcv
Posted by: @c-fuzzy
Posted by: @pow_hnd
Posted by: @yukiotokosama
Posted by: @pow_hnd

Avalanche fatality here over the weekend. 

Airbag deployed, still buried 6ft under.

 

2nd death like this here in the last 3 years.

 

Airbags aren’t what MFGs make them out to be. 

Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, this article from Bruce Temper is a pretty good read on the effectiveness of airbags.

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/15943

The only 100% way to avoid dying in an avalanche is to avoid avalanche terrain completely. Yes, the 97% success  rate marketed by the

 

 

 

 

Don't airbags work based on the Brazil Nut Effect? Just because conditions don't meet the requirements for it to work in every instance doesn't mean it doesn't work. No? 

lolwut

Things work based upon meeting the required conditions. For example Fuel, Spark, Compression make an engine run. Just because you remove a condition needed for it to work doesn't mean it doesn't work when the conditions are met.

In this instance, the Brazil Nut Effect aka Granular Convection. 

It is a thing and it works. Doesn't mean that every avy meets the conditions for it to work. But that doesn't mean it cant.


ReplyQuote
c.fuzzy
(@c-fuzzy)
Cold Chillin' Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1552
22/01/2020 9:35 am  
Posted by: @pow_hnd
Posted by: @c-fuzzy
Posted by: @pow_hnd
Posted by: @yukiotokosama
Posted by: @pow_hnd

Avalanche fatality here over the weekend. 

Airbag deployed, still buried 6ft under.

 

2nd death like this here in the last 3 years.

 

Airbags aren’t what MFGs make them out to be. 

Nothing in life is guaranteed. However, this article from Bruce Temper is a pretty good read on the effectiveness of airbags.

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog/15943

The only 100% way to avoid dying in an avalanche is to avoid avalanche terrain completely. Yes, the 97% success  rate marketed by the manufacturers is misleading. That said, there is empirical evidence of increased survivability when using an airbag.

Yes, I'm quite a ware of that article, and have has many face to face talks with Bruce.

He doesn't wear an airbag. Never once in 15 years of running into him on the skin track, which happened quite a lot, we liked to go to the same areas, did I ever see him with an airbag. ( yes he said t the time he believes in them, but there was politics behind it, with airbag MFGs fiscally supporting UAC and Bruce being an employee ( the director actually ) at the time) 

They maybe add  2-3% more of a survivabilty rate in your typical NA terrain, but even then, that was  assuming they ( deployed airbag ) keeps you on top. Since that blog post was written, we have had two deployed airbags where the victims were buried 6ft under, and one where the person was buried 1.5ft under, so I would say there is now more empirical evidence that would skew the effectiveness of airbags towards non-success rate side of things. So more data has proven them to be even less effective than even though of when Bruce wrote the article, even in a best case scenario.

Only the person who was 1.5ft under survived, and that person would have most likely survived even with out the bag, she was seen being buried by a large group of people all with beacons, probes and shovels, and they were all within a couple of hundred meters and were at her burial site within moments, she sustained no trauma, so as Bruce pointed out in his article she is one of the scenarios where the airbag didn't really do much to change her outcome, and even at that it didn't keep her on top. 

As I stated, Airbags are not what they seem. 

 

 

 

 

Don't airbags work based on the Brazil Nut Effect? Just because conditions don't meet the requirements for it to work in every instance doesn't mean it doesn't work. No? 

Sure. 

But the Brazil nut Effect is just a conditions/requirement scenario for it to keep you on top.

My beef ( aside from the fact the don't always keep you on top and MFGs would like consumers to belive )  is the subconscious decision making of people when they strap the airbag on. 

You have to add to that the human element of decision making which could very well be influenced by having an airbag on an individuals back. Then that can get even more complicated by herd mentality. ( now you've got 3 people with airbags and those airbags are subconsciously effecting the decision making process of all those people ) and herd mentality is a huge killer... 

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard someone say, I wouldn't have gone out that day without my airbag, or it's a line I won't ride unless I have my airbag...  That is the wrong way of thinking or making a risk assessment, but it's what people do. 

Then, even when they do what they are supposed to do ( keep you on top) , airbags still have in most cases little to no chance to keeping you alive. 

Especially in NA terrain.

Here's where we had a Forecaster killed, bag deployed, did nothing to save his life, it kept him on top, but he died of trauma because he was in NA terrain. 

https://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanche/16589

People say they won't do these things w/o their airbag. Okay.

But if an airbag wasn't an option, like it didn't exist, do you think they wouldn't consider riding those lines at all?

And in my mind... I don't know that it makes a difference.

So to look at it another way, lets say...Me, personally, I'm not looking at a line or an aspect, aware of the unsafe conditions, and thinking my desire and decision to ride it is dependent on a piece of  equipment that doesn't exist yet.

No, my desire to ride it exists fully now. Like... Just because I choose to employ the available risk mitigating things that I have access to, does that mean that I wouldn't make those same choices if they were never an option.

Maybe I've got this wrong because I'm choosing to think about it as if they weren't an option and they are. 

But going back to the seatbelt thing... people drove before seatbelts and some drove risky before seatbelts and it was 100% their own persons that made them take risks. The addition of seatbelts didn't make them take more risks.

 


matty liked
ReplyQuote
c.fuzzy
(@c-fuzzy)
Cold Chillin' Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1552
22/01/2020 10:22 am  

I don't know if I'm getting my thoughts across. So maybe one last stab.

A person that is driven to take and enjoys risks is going to take risks. If they take unnecessary risks with safety equipment, it's my opinion that they would take those same risks without it, because they are the type of person that takes unnecessary risks. The equipment doesn't cause the innate drive to the edge of their thrill and it doesn't cause the ignorance. The person's drive and ignorance is independent. The equipment is more of a thermometer to the temperature of their drive to take risks. It's independent.

So for an example. I own an airbag and I've never used it. I've never went out with it. It's never propelled me to take a risk and it's never stopped me from taking one. I am in the back country and I'm riding avy terrain. I am educated about the risks to the best of my own degree at the time. By all measures I should employ it and I don't. Because my desire to take risks (ignorant or not) is wholly independent of the equipment. If I'm going to ride I'm going to ride and if I'm going to walk away I'm going to walk away. I've done both. It tells the temperature of my risk taking but it doesn't change it. I'm an equal idiot both ways.

And I own a helmet too, in fact multiple helmets, but I don't wear a helmet snowboarding. It's never stopped me from taking a risk and I've never really thought to myself 'if only I had a helmet I'd do xyz' propelling me. I do wear one on my bike and my motorcycle though, but again I'd argue that I've not taken a risk with it that I wouldn't have taken without it. Equal idiot both ways.

I'm a risk taker. My threshold for risk may change depending on my own comfort level but it doesn't change the underlying drive for thrills. In my estimation my desire for risk and thrills isn't a variable dependent on any safety equipment. 

Some peoples feet don't leave the pavement and some people are Sketchy Andy. You could put all the safty equipment on someone and they still wouldn't let their feet leave the pavement. And you can give some people access to every safety option and it wouldn't change their desire to toe the ultimate edge. What's subconscious is the driving factor. The equipment is just an indicator to their level of caution.

Maybe. 

Or maybe not.

These are just my thoughts. 

This post was modified 1 month ago by c.fuzzy

coleslawed and matty liked
ReplyQuote
pow_hnd
(@pow_hnd)
Wasangeles Forum Superstar!
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 579
22/01/2020 11:41 am  
Posted by: @c-fuzzy

I don't know if I'm getting my thoughts across. So maybe one last stab.

A person that is driven to take and enjoys risks is going to take risks. If they take unnecessary risks with safety equipment, it's my opinion that they would take those same risks without it, because they are the type of person that takes unnecessary risks. The equipment doesn't cause the innate drive to the edge of their thrill and it doesn't cause the ignorance. The person's drive and ignorance is independent. The equipment is more of a thermometer to the temperature of their drive to take risks. It's independent.

So for an example. I own an airbag and I've never used it. I've never went out with it. It's never propelled me to take a risk and it's never stopped me from taking one. I am in the back country and I'm riding avy terrain. I am educated about the risks to the best of my own degree at the time. By all measures I should employ it and I don't. Because my desire to take risks (ignorant or not) is wholly independent of the equipment. If I'm going to ride I'm going to ride and if I'm going to walk away I'm going to walk away. I've done both. It tells the temperature of my risk taking but it doesn't change it. I'm an equal idiot both ways.

And I own a helmet too, in fact multiple helmets, but I don't wear a helmet snowboarding. It's never stopped me from taking a risk and I've never really thought to myself 'if only I had a helmet I'd do xyz' propelling me. I do wear one on my bike and my motorcycle though, but again I'd argue that I've not taken a risk with it that I wouldn't have taken without it. Equal idiot both ways.

I'm a risk taker. My threshold for risk may change depending on my own comfort level but it doesn't change the underlying drive for thrills. In my estimation my desire for risk and thrills isn't a variable dependent on any safety equipment. 

Some peoples feet don't leave the pavement and some people are Sketchy Andy. You could put all the safty equipment on someone and they still wouldn't let their feet leave the pavement. And you can give some people access to every safety option and it wouldn't change their desire to toe the ultimate edge. What's subconscious is the driving factor. The equipment is just an indicator to their level of caution.

Maybe. 

Or maybe not.

These are just my thoughts. 

I agree with this. The problem is, you're in the minority, the very big minority at that. Most people, even those with high degrees of Avy training, still are stupid, and take risks. 

I can point out a ton of instances where people with high skill levels thought they were smarter than the snowpack. It's referred to as GOD complex, it's how Ruedi Beglinger got Craig Kelly killed. 

 Statistically, the airbag isn't going to help them if shit goes sideways, as Airbag MFGs would like people to believe. See all the deaths with airbags I've pointed out. 

Then, there are the weekend warriors and/or newbies. They are not nearly as educated ( and yes that falls on them ) but they buy an airbag because of these false numbers and promises the MFGs are throwing out there, then they believe this bullshit and put themselves in more harms way than they should because of said airbags. So they are making decisions based on the fucking Airbag.

This happens way more than you would think. 

Since I know this happens, I like to point it out every time there is a death that involved with an airbag deployment so these people in that high risk group see that they really aren't the life savers that the MFGs would like them to believe.  This group of people, aren't your lifers/ski-snowboard bum/100 day year people.

They are the very excited, civilians, with 9 to 5 jobs, that have a weekend where it has dumped and they planned to go out into the backcountry and they had a specific goal in mind, they are to dumb to walk away or change their objective, but their decision to carry through IS reinforced or rationalized partly by the fact they have THEIR AIRBAG on.  

Yes it is on them, but the reality is a lot of their poor decision to forge ahead has to do with the fact of the airbag on their back. 

That's why I point these things out, these deaths involving airbags. So people can see, they aren't all that, because there are a lot of people who are convinced that they are all that. 

 


ReplyQuote
Page 92 / 96
Share: