Lost hikers on Franconia Ridge

[dr_wu002]

Probably not a bad idea, if you could find an insurance company to underwrite it, even better.

Actually, someone had mentioned having rangers at every trailhead but this seems impractical. A better solution would be to invite a corporation to come in and manage the White Mountains. They could set up kiosks at every trailhead that would be manned 24/7. These kiosks would have employees that would collect fees for trail use, insurance and perhaps sell consumables like water, gatorade, energy bars etc. The fees they collect would go towards trail maintenance, signage etc. The insurance could be set up as a tiered system with the lowest tier mandatory for all hikers. Higher tiers could be purchased for those who want to bushwhack or even higher tiers for longer hikes or a premium for first priority in helicopter rescue. The insurance cost could also be based on a sliding scale depending on the hikers physical condition, weight, knowledge, gear and # of lists completed. The worker at the kiosk would make these decisions. This would also boost the local economy as the company would need to attract 100's of skilled workers to man the kiosks at each site (especially in summer).

It's a win-win situation for both the hiker and the local area. The hiker will feel more secure and have a better hiking experience due to better maintained trails and lower stress from not having to worry about an unplanned night out. And the local economy, as I mentioned, would benefit greatly from a huge amount of job growth in the community.

-Dr. Wu

 

[David Metsky]

Actually, someone had mentioned having rangers at every trailhead but this seems impractical. A better solution would be to invite a corporation to come in and manage the White Mountains. They could set up kiosks at every trailhead that would be manned 24/7. These kiosks would have employees that would collect fees for trail use, insurance and perhaps sell consumables like water, gatorade, energy bars etc. The fees they collect would go towards trail maintenance, signage etc. The insurance could be set up as a tiered system with the lowest tier mandatory for all hikers. Higher tiers could be purchased for those who want to bushwhack or even higher tiers for longer hikes or a premium for first priority in helicopter rescue. The insurance cost could also be based on a sliding scale depending on the hikers physical condition, weight, knowledge, gear and # of lists completed. The worker at the kiosk would make these decisions. This would also boost the local economy as the company would need to attract 100's of skilled workers to man the kiosks at each site (especially in summer).

It's a win-win situation for both the hiker and the local area. The hiker will feel more secure and have a better hiking experience due to better maintained trails and lower stress from not having to worry about an unplanned night out. And the local economy, as I mentioned, would benefit greatly from a huge amount of job growth in the community.

-Dr. Wu

In case people can't tell, this is sarcasm. This is my own little warning sign before people react with a bit more vitriol then is necessary.

 

[dr_wu002]

In case people can't tell, this is sarcasm. This is my own little warning sign before people react with a bit more vitriol then is necessary.

I think it's usually called "giving people choice..." Yeah, that's the euphemism.

-Dr. Wu

 

[DougPaul]

When my family hiked the Grand Canyon many years ago, we ran into some European hikers (college age?) drinking river water*. They had read the signs imploring people to take adequate water, but didn't believe them and carried none. (I don't know the stats off hand, but dehydration is a common cause of death in GC.)

* Colorado River water is very silty and not particularly good to drink.


I think signs at the trailheads and the boundaries of the danger zones (ie timberline) are appropriate. (And we have such signs right now.) None gives no information and too many (or too much info on them) will cause them them to be ignored. Presumably there is some optimum number, but fundamentally some will be helped by the signs and some will ignore them no matter how many there are.

Doug

 

[chomp]

So you wish you could have had a chance to whisper in the guys ear, but you would oppose putting signs up at the trailhead because you're certain it wouldn't have helped.

nice. enjoy your certainty.

I don't have any hard evidence to support my opinion - neither do you. I never said I was certain; I said that I didn't believe it would have helped and that this was an unfortunate accident. And, oh, by the way, there is a warning sign in this trailhead, and I provided a photo of that sign.

To recap - my opinion is that more signs would make things worse. Yours is that more signs would make things better. We are both interested in seeing less accidents, I just don't agree with you on how to accomplish that.

 

[sardog1]

In case people can't tell, this is sarcasm. This is my own little warning sign before people react with a bit more vitriol then is necessary.

Well, now you've gone and spoiled all the fun with a cautionary advisory.

 

[sapblatt]

I think more signs or fewer signs would not increase or decrease accidents - we have much safer cars these days and we still have accients - same can be said for boats, airplanes, surgery, etc. - as has been said - there are people who read warning signs and get totally wigged out and turn around on a perfect day "Many have died" - there are others who read that sign and say "I can handle it, I know what I am doing" - there are some who do not read the sign and others who do not care or do not respect the sign.

I am in the group that reads the sign and respects what it says and only proceed if I think the conditions are something I can handle. I hike with others who hike this way and I try to not hike with folks who I have seen not hike this way or who I assume do not. I have my own comfort levels - and they certainly vary by the season.

I have no idea where the two unfortunate hikers on Franconia Ridge fall on this broad spectrum - but I do think it was unavoidable and unfortunate. I hope Mr. Osborne makes a full recovery.

The price of living is dying - the idea for me is to minimize risk and maximize the experience and the enjoyment.

 

[giggy]

First of all, this argument uses a very popular form of faux-logic - you claim to have proven your theory by citing a few (2) examples, while dismissing others opinions based on their own limited experiences. The truth is - neither the pro-sign or anti-sign posters have any quantitative evidence to bolster their arguments. Its a mixture of opinion and very limited personal experiences. I looked for a study on warning sign effectiveness, and found nothing.

That being said, I come down on the anti-sign side of this debate. I offer no proof, just a personal belief that this world already has too many warning signs and that myself along with many others have become numb to these signs. "CAUTION: Coffee is HOT", "WARNING: Airbag may EXPLODE", "BEWARE: Cell Phone may cause CANCER", etc...

We as humans tend to ignore things that become the norm, and even mock them, despite how serious they are. "BABY ON BOARD" anyone? Remember when this started out as a good-intentioned way of letting someone know that there was an infant in a car. But that wasn't the end of it - soon we had KIDS, DOGS, GRANDPARENTS, etc... Soon the "warning" sign of who was in your car became a joke and everyone had one mocking the original. Or take the more recent example of ribbons or wristbands - what started off as something with a good intention became overblown and, eventually, mocked and ignored.

I claim that the same is true with the warning signs. How many people here have seen a group of hikers laughing and joking at the big, bad yellow warning signs in the Presis? Raise your hand if you have done the same. I have:

http://gallery.backcountry.net/chompat99nh/aaq
http://gallery.backcountry.net/chomp-MonroeKingsWashington/aba

My point is that these signs are already a joke for quite a few hikers, and adding more will just make the lessen their impact further. There is already more than ample information at the trailheads about the conditions and the risks, especially the Falling Waters Trailhead. As you can see from this picture, they have a board: "Alpine Zone- its a Tough Place to GO" (the GROW one is to the left):

http://image64.webshots.com/64/0/51/36/2179051360049791970qXTlee_fs.jpg

Bottom line - accidents can and do happen, but when they are a relative rarity, we think that we could have prevented them. Life is not always clean, and sometimes you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Its unfortunate, its sad, and like everyone else I wish I could go back and whisper in these guys ears that a nasty storm was coming. Its not that I don't care (or that I am elitist or Darwinian) - its that I honestly and truly believe that a warning sign would not have made a difference. Worse, actually - I believe that adding MORE signs would make the current ones less effective. I'm sorry to hear about these two men just as I am sorry to hear about the shooting victims in Illinois, I just don't see what could have reasonably been done to prevent this unfortunate accident.

It really doesn't get any better than this post. I think any reasonable person thinks this way. Looking good in that beard Chomp. Also - thanks for confirming the signs there - I was 99% there was one - but not 100%.

Again - the weather and conditions in the whites for even the barebone novice hiker - is well document and easily accessible information.

posted all over pinkham, highland and most major trailheads, amc site, MWO site, etc... This was nothing more than an accident in which they caught in a squall/storm/snow/wind had some bad luck. My guess is most hikers on the range would have had similar gear - I will tell you right now, if it would have been me on the ridge on that day , I probably would have had the same gear - and depending on snow levels and how packed the trail was - I might have left the shoes in the car. My guess is I am not alone in that thinking. In fact, in winter, I rarely take shoes on that loop - ever.

Its an unfortunate event - but its a risk we take as hikers and climbers.

 

[chipc]

The insurance cost could also be based on a sliding scale depending on the hikers physical condition, weight, knowledge, gear and # of lists completed. The worker at the kiosk would make these decisions. This would also boost the local economy as the company would need to attract 100's of skilled workers to man the kiosks at each site (especially in summer).

-Dr. Wu

Several suggested modifications: 1) the system would work better if the kiosk workers were not particularly well-informed on hiking and mountaineering. The arbitrariness of their decision would enhance your experience if you happened to be lucky enough to be approved, 2) you would need a referral from a primary assessor stating the worthiness of your abilities. Perhaps EMS, REI or even NHS liquor stores could have these stations. 3) Only sponsor-produced beverages and snacks will be sold or allowed in, except when the corporation decides to substitute a generic brand.

 

[Tuco]

I haven’t read it recently but maybe it’s the best form of research here and time to re-read. In Now Without Peril, how many of the cases discussed occurred to people who were not already knowledgeable about the inherent dangers of the Mountains? I seem to recall that most people that were involved in unfortunate circumstances had previous experience in the mountains. Not many of us have experience in decision making during life or death situations. Or perhaps decision making had nothing to do with some of these cases.

I don’t know the answer. But I do know there will never be a total cessation of fatalities as long as people head up to the mountains.

I am for things that attempt to help, but don't want to be unrealistic in the results.

 

[Maddy]

Charge everyone for rescue. Along with the self-service pay-to-park kiosks, introduce trip insurance vouchers (or, like the WMNF parking stickers, have the ability to pay for a whole season). Anyone who pays for a voucher won't get charged, regardless of circumstances. Anyone who doesn't, gets charged. Revenue to help defray cost of rescue.

This eliminates the subjective judgement of how "accidental" any single situation is. It sets in place an easily understood rule. It outlines the dangers by implying that rescue may be necessary. It clearly states that there could be a financial hit for disregarding both preparedness and a voucher.

Great idea Dugan!!! You should send this in to Lt Borgadus and people like Rick Wilcox and other "powers that be".

 

[Tim Seaver]

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign

Speaking of signs that nobody takes seriously....

How many people would be disqualified from hiking in the Whites if that first line was taken at face value?

 

[Little Rickie]

Lets face it there is only so much you can do. You can't protect people from their own stupidity.

We would all like the world to be a perfect place where no one gets hurt or dies but that isn't the way nature is.

Do your best & let darwin take care of the rest.

 

[el-bagr]

"Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. "
- Ralph W. Emerson

"Those who cannot control themselves will be controlled by others -- legislators, regulators, and the police. This destroys freedom. But a citizenry composed of self-governing individuals will rarely need the power of the state to solve its problems."
- John C. Downen

Shaking the snow out of my brain, and with much respect for all participants in this discussion, as well as the deceased:

It is my firm opinion that self-reliance, not regulation, is our savior. It is my belief that it is not for us to "prevent or guard against these tragic errors of judgment and inexperience", nor to "convince the authorities that signs should be put up in more places". I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Dr Wu, Chomp, and DougPaul. These are my own beliefs; they may not be yours.

The posters here are not the first to consider self-reliance ("macho individualism" as one poster put it) a virtue. As Emerson said, "Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members."

On a very pragmatic level, it was proposed that signs could list "the gear required to winter hike" as well as for summer hiking. I am convinced that no gear -- absolutely none -- is per se required for hiking in any season. Things like shoes make sense for almost all people, but not everyone, at least not in warm weather. Shoes, pants, trekking poles, safety goggles, snowshoes, a whistle -- most of us use some of these things on most hikes, but in my opinion there can be no universal rule except the self-rule of judgment. Besides, seasons are sneaky. The jet stream and orographic lift know no calendar.

It takes a strong opinion on an important issue for me to post much these days. To me, the issue is not the Franconia incident spawning this discussion; rather, it is our collective deepening lack of self-reliance. Life is not a race to the bottom; here, especially, we all strive for the heights of humanity. We care for our fellow man by offering reasonable protections (e.g. outlawing private nuclear weapons) while offering a concomitant respect for his or her individuality.

Peace.
el-b

 

[Chip]

Great idea Dugan!!! You should send this in to Lt Borgadus and people like Rick Wilcox and other "powers that be".

Hey Maddy, I'm really not picking on your ideas here, I think everything that can be done should be and I believe people (vs tax payers) should pay for rescue, but it's been demonstrated that rescue is called for less - increasing chances of injury or death - if the "participant" is concerned or aware of the costs involved.

 

[dr_wu002]

Hey Maddy, I'm really not picking on your ideas here, I think everything that can be done should be and I believe people (vs tax payers) should pay for rescue, but it's been demonstrated that rescue is called for less - increasing chances of injury or death - if the "participant" is concerned or aware of the costs involved.

Perhaps instead of all the warning signs and signs telling you what you need to have and that you should be in top physical shape, there should be one sign and only one sign which, in large, grotesque font should say, "COST OF RESCUE: $10,000." Maybe in the fine print it can say "non-negotiable."

-Dr. Wu

 

[MadRiver]

I’m suspending judgment until I read Mohamed’s report in Appalachia.

 

[erugs]

Mohammed's report will be very interesting, indeed. I just came across a quote that I'd like to share (but not enough to change the one I'll end my messages here with). Margarett Thatcher once said, "Standing in the middle of the road is dangerous; you get knocked down by both sides."

Also, one of my life-guiding messages "to self" is: "Don't believe every thought you have" and I wonder how often I've had close calls one way or another because of it. What I'm taking from this thread is that we're not always safely on belay, but at least we're working towards continuing awareness by having the opportunity to speak our minds and watch how it settles.

 

[Maddy]

Money talks when nothing else seems to.

Perhaps instead of all the warning signs and signs telling you what you need to have and that you should be in top physical shape, there should be one sign and only one sign which, in large, grotesque font should say, "COST OF RESCUE: $10,000." Maybe in the fine print it can say "non-negotiable."

-Dr. Wu

This certainly would be a start, and I also love Dugan's idea.
"Charge everyone for rescue. Along with the self-service pay-to-park kiosks, introduce trip insurance vouchers (or, like the WMNF parking stickers, have the ability to pay for a whole season). Anyone who pays for a voucher won't get charged, regardless of circumstances. Anyone who doesn't, gets charged. Revenue to help defray cost of rescue.

This eliminates the subjective judgement of how "accidental" any single situation is. It sets in place an easily understood rule. It outlines the dangers by implying that rescue may be necessary. It clearly states that there could be a financial hit for disregarding both preparedness and a voucher."

 

[sapblatt]

Speaking of signs that nobody takes seriously....

How many people would be disqualified from hiking in the Whites if that first line was taken at face value?

That is a great point Tim - and I am guilty - at best I am in reasonable to average shape - at worst, well lets just say "out of shape" - I worry a lot about people I see who do not have any of the four sentences going on - no gear, inadequate water and food, etc...

People will always make bad decisions and many will think they can do more than they can - and often they will make it. But sometime and somwhere it can certainly catch up with you. If you are lucky you can survive and learn from it...