J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by ise

Timeforabeer wrote:Unfortunately the 'outcome' which prompted all this discussion is the death of a woman who probably perceived the 'risk' to be pretty minimal.

I agree that the apocryphal tales of 'I know a bloke who...' warp the reality of the serious events per day of injury-free skiing.

Now, no-one wants to take a risk assessor with them on holiday. So we either trust the bald stats that, on any given day, the risk of what we do is acceptable; or we over-compensate with bits of plastic and padding...

But you won't. I guarantee you that more lives will be saved if car passengers wear helmets, there's been deaths just today as a result but you're not going to wear a helmet next time you're in the car.

bandit wrote:Well ise, if you think it's a misleading statement made by Amer Sports on their press release, you should take it up with them. Alternatively you could send the press release to the Advertising Standards Authority I suppose :)

As for me, I'm still on the lookout for new boots :D

it won't be their first offence, the guff about the vario stuff was also wrong :D

I don't suppose many of us take advertising at face value :D

freobhoy wrote:Interesting discussion about "risk" and the understanding of risk as a concept. What is "risk"?...it is the probability or likelihood of a specified outcome occurring in a specified period. In the context of skiing the risk of fatality to an individual is relatively low. The risk of injury, however, is significantly higher.

The risk of injury or fatality is influenced by a number of factors, many of which we can't control such as the conditions, other clowns, snowboarders ;), etc, but some of which we can control - where we ski, when we ski and how we ski.

There is, however, always going to be finite risk of fatality whilst skiing and the natural reaction to that should be to try and reduce that risk by the application of practical measures.

That's pretty much on the nail. Although, while it's true we can't control some factors we can reasonably predict them in two ways, one, by judging what that outcome will be and, two, from past evidence.

Risk is actually measured by taking a probability of event (based on past occurrence) and consequence. So for skiing, grouping a whole load of things, falls where you're injured are a low likelihood and the consequence isn't serious, by not serious we don't include a few weeks off work or a ruined holiday while as an individual these are pretty adverse outcomes. So that's a low risk.

Incidents with fatal outcomes are vanishingly rare in terms of numbers of days, that's an absolute thing and allows you to make comparison with other activities, ski days, car journeys, air flights etc, so the outcomes are nearly as bad as possible (the worst being multiple fatalities) but it's still a low risk as it's not likely to occur.

Unfortunately, what you get is people confusing outcomes with risk as several posters here have done. That's actually worse than just a misunderstanding, particularly when you start sharing it, because one of the most risky things you can do is not understand the risk you're in. Unless you know the risk you can't act to mitigate it.

That's technical risk, we also have another measure, distinguishing between perceived, real and absolute risk.

Perceived risk is often situations where consequences are actually pretty dire but the likelihood is remote, a good example is a high ropes course, falling from the top would be really bad but there's no real danger if you follow the safety procedures.

Real risk is when something could well happen, a trek up Snowdon for example, you've got all the kit on and have prepared but someone could still slip and fall for example. But, the risk is identified and mitigated, like carrying a rope for security and a first aid kit.

While absolute risk is where there's a high chance of adverse outcomes, so if instead of a qualified leader taking the group up Snowdon it's someone with no qualifications taking people out on a winter mountain without proper equipment. They might get back safely, they might have done so before even but there's still high chances of a problem with highly negative outcomes. Typically there's no mitigation either, the group will be ill equipped and ill prepared to deal with problems.

It's interesting that many members of the public cannot distinguish between those scenarios and can't identify the risk of those activities. There's been some stuff posted on the forum where absolute risk existed and no one noticed.

Mortlock (The Adventure Alternative) suggests four levels :

Stage 1: Play: Characterized by little emotion through relatively easy participation in activities which are below the person's skill level

Stage 2: Adventure: (Characterized by enjoyment and excitement, where a person's is using his her capabilities more fully, but the person maintains control over the situation and his/her self

Stage 3: Frontier Adventure: Characterized by peak experience, which emerges from a person experiencing adventurous challenges very close to his/her limits. If the person succeeds, then generally a peak experience is had, but there is real risk of pushing too far and falling/failing, leading to Stage 4.

Stage 4: Misadventure: Characterized by a person choosing or being forced to participate in challenges beyond his/her capabilities, resulting in negative emotions (fear, hurt, etc.), possibly injury and even ultimately death.

That's a variation on the same theme, you reckon learning or development takes place at stages 2 and 3 or in the real risk level. For learning or development you can substitute challenge which is something most skiers are looking for.

More than anything don't forget this, if you go and stand in the A&E department at a hospital near a ski area and do a poll with injured skiers and ask how many people were involved in their accident the overwhelming answer will be "just themselves"

bandit wrote:

Atomic wrote:
The Atomic Renu is the first Alpine boot that is made of renewable raw materials but still matches traditional boots in performance.

I'm pretty sure they're not actually :D I'm sure I recall reading some older press releases from someone saying the exact same thing.

Mike from NS wrote:Well I'm not going to debate how high or low risk skiing may be. Too many factors come into play. For some of us, the places we ski sets the level of risk. In some parts of Atlantic Canada we ski mostly on ice and in my mind this elevates the risk level over that if skiing in powder. Also the risk level I suppose may be related to opinion. There are many opinions out there which consider skiing as a high risk sport.

There might well be but presumably held by people who don't actually understand risk as a concept. Recreational skiing on and off piste are low risk activities, a lot of people measure and monitor this not least insurance companies so it's pretty well understood.

Mike from NS wrote:We all realize we are in a high risk sport and accidents can easily happen.

no we don't because we aren't, the number of accidents per skier days is very low, it's an extremely safe sport with very little absolute risk.

Ian Wickham wrote:Do you wear one because you ski off Piste more than on, it is just a matter of interest really as I ski 80% on piste but if I was to ski more off piste I think I would be more tempted to wear one.

Originally the reverse, I was more concerned about the hard surface of piste. Nowadays, for both. Off-piste in the trees I'm sometimes glad of a helmet particularly.

Ian Wickham wrote:ise, do you wear a helmet ??

mostly, unless weight and speed are issue for a tour and then I don't