Your chances of dying, ranked by sport and activity

I'm sure there will be disagreements, nitpicking, etc., but I'd like to hear what you think of the hiking/climbing related stats...

http://www.tetongravity.com/story/adventure/your-chances-of-dying-ranked-by-sport-and-activity

Tom Rankin said:

I'm sure there will be disagreements, nitpicking, etc., but I'd like to hear what you think of the hiking/climbing related stats...

http://www.tetongravity.com/story/adventure/your-chances-of-dying-ranked-by-sport-and-activity

Click to expand...

The hiking numbers seem inflated to me. I would guess that on a beautiful summer day in the Northeast there are thousands and thousands of people on the trails. Wouldn't we have a fatality every weekend with those odds? FWIW.

Z

I've never added them up, but fatalities do happen fairly 'regularly'. And I doubt no one person is aware of them all.

summitseeker said:

The hiking numbers seem inflated to me. I would guess that on a beautiful summer day in the Northeast there are thousands and thousands of people on the trails. Wouldn't we have a fatality every weekend with those odds? FWIW.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Manadnock sees 125,000 visitors each year. The WMNF sees 6 million (though not sure what percentage of them are 'hikers'). If 10% of WMNF visitors are hikers, that's 600,000 hikers each year. NH does not see 46+ hiking deaths each year.

I looked for the original sources of these numbers by following the references from the TGR article. The only articles cited are from the mid- to late-80's, are paywalled, and appear to not directly study 'hiking.' Instead, they study SCUBA diving or ski jumping and such and reference other (even older, possible completely irrelevant) articles to compare the risks of those sports with other sports.

In sum, at least for hiking, I would place little or no value on these numbers. It is, IMO, an exceptionally important topic and one I wish were better researched. In fact, I think it's worth talking about even if the data are only anectodal.

Here is my anecdotal data (oxymoron intended):

• I don't personally know anyone who has been seriously injured while hiking. I know several hundred hikers, I would estimate.
• I know (knew) personally one person who was killed while technical climbing, and another who needed to be medivac'ed out to save his life. I know perhaps 100 climbers.
• I know one person who was seriously injured mountaineering (Denali). I know a couple dozen mountaineers.

My summary: technical climbing and mountaineering are really dangerous. Hiking is not.

Your anecdotes may vary, and I would be interested in hearing from others.

Using averages can be confusing. If 1 in 16k people die while hiking, that doesn't mean that every foot of trail carries the same risk. The point seems more obvious in the whites, where the summits of the Presidential's are arguably more dangerous than the miles of trail at lower elevation. That reasoning can be applied to the broader context that hiking wherever the article's source data comes from might be more dangerous than it is in the whites. I'm not going to take the time to check their sources though, I'll just post another XKCD: https://xkcd.com/795/

I think it's important to not just look at the number of death's, but causes as well. In well over 30 years in the backcountry here is my summary, ( completely made up by me ). In an average year you get one death, above average 2, a bad year 3 or more. When looking at these already small numbers in comparison to how many are out there, I also look at the causes of death. Heart attacks make up a large number, even this weekend that was the cause I believe. Is a heart attack really hiking related? It's not like they fell off the trail, they could have easily had the same incident jogging or swimming. I suffered many more (although minor) injuries when I was a technical climber. Hiking is pretty safe if you ask me.

It is interesting to note that the rate of heart attacks is 7.7 per thousand. That could be on the couch, on the bus, on a hiking trail ... ;-)

A somewhat popular death list is kept for Deaths on Mt Washington. Unfortunately the definition of Mt Washington is pretty broad, encompassing any fatalities within a rough box bounded by RT 302, Rt 2, RT 16, Jefferson Notch and Mt Clinton roads. Deaths from heart attacks on the autoroad or the Cog would count and victims of plane crash that lands on the mountain also count. As far as I know if someone goes off the road "in the box" and dies on the highway they don't count it.

I need to be careful as using my definition of the "box" my house is in the death zone

On a more serious note some insurance companies will not issue high value policies or will specifically exclude mountaineering and the type of hiking required to climb the 4Ks can be considered "mountaineering" by an insurance company if they need to pay out a claim.

Brambor said:

It is interesting to note that the rate of heart attacks is 7.7 per thousand. That could be on the couch, on the bus, on a hiking trail ... ;-)

Click to expand...

I have a close relative who hikes a lot. We've hiked at well over 12000 feet elevation here in CO, and done all the NH48 together. Despite all this hiking, he (or whatever powers that be) chose to have his cardiac arrest at the Y last December. So, hiking could be said to be perhaps protective against heart attacks.

Now the rest of the story: because of the location and availability of a host of trained folks and an AED at the Y, and a crack surgeon at UMass, he is back to hiking again.

Their statistics on transportation are also misleading. By "car" or by "licensed driver" are less accurate a statistic of risk than by "miles traveled." Here is a comparison of various transportation modes compared by "100 millions of passenger miles." A fairer comparison IMHO.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/comparing-fatality-risks-united-states-transportation-across-modes-time#

Basic takeaway: motorcycles are extremely dangerous. “A motorcyclist who traveled 15 miles every day for a year, had an astonishing 1 in 860 chance of dying — 29 times the risk for automobiles and light trucks.”

bcskier said:

Their statistics on transportation are also misleading. By "car" or by "licensed driver" are less accurate a statistic of risk than by "miles traveled." Here is a comparison of various transportation modes compared by "100 millions of passenger miles." A fairer comparison IMHO.

Click to expand...

Good resource, thanks

Always wonder about "heart attack" stats in this context. How many are truly heart attacks ie- MI's and how many are arrythmias- afib, heart block?

I agree with most of the comments so far, I consider hiking very safe if you do your homework, the numbers of the OP link are too ridiculous to be interesting. 1/167 die hiking in Nepal ? I don't think so. What does "expert climbing" mean ? I think what is dangerous is when a non expert tackles an expert route (one who overestimates their abilities) . I am a road runner when healthy (torn meniscus has put that activity on hold for this year and hopefully no more), and I consider that activity an order of magnitude or more dangerous then any hiking I do. My surrogate activity, biking, much of it on narrow, crowded MA roads, I consider even more dangerous then running on the roads. Biking on the backroads of the Champlain Islands of Vermont, not so dangerous. Qualitatively an interesting discussion. If I decide I want to climb Mt Adams and leave at 5pm tonight with no gear, no headlamp, just wearing summer clothes and a wind breaker, that would be pretty dangerous.

On travel insurance, I know you need to buy special binders if you are going over 6000 meters, which can be hard to find and expensive. I have also seen insurance companies say if you use mountaineering gear such as ropes, harness, ice ax, etc ... they will not cover you. Which taken at face value means some one climbing Rainier with glacier gear would not be covered, but somebody climbing the same route without any gear would be covered.