most dangerous aspect of climbing

Em Cos wrote:ANAM is useful anecdotally, but keep in mind it relies on self-reporting and does not include all accidents so doesn't necessarily provide valid statistics. For example, if 80% of all accidents reported to ANAM involved rappel failure that wouldn't necessarily mean that 80% of all accidents involve rappel failure. Just something to keep in mind.

A collection of "Self reported" data does not mean anecdotal which suggests bias. Just because it is self reported or collected from public accounts also does not make it statistically irrelevant either. ANAM gives over 60 years of stats that collectively have a large N value. Check out the last few pages of the reports.

60+ years of publicly reported data says falling is the primary cause of mortality/morbidity in climbing. That is a trend that should not be binned into "anecdotal". It strongly suggests we take a lesson from it.
The
PT

What you are reading is a collection of anecdotes. Self-reported data is by its nature biased. The sample may be large but it is not random. None of those things make the data worthless, I never said it should be "binned" or ignored, I said it was useful. I only said that the origin of that data should be kept in mind.

The MP's word of the month: Anecdote.

here is my "anecdote" : to me the most dangerous part of climbing is the act of nature. That being a rock fall, ice fall, avalanche, electrical storm, fast approaching storm, etc. Second place would go to performance failure, that being human fatigue, equipment failure or malunction or partner miscommunication.

This guy:

youtube.com/watch?v=V9hsWjA…

All joking aside, I would say that human error plays a part in several of the things mentioned: driving, over-estimation, under-estimation, unpreparedness, etc.

Brian in SLC wrote: Actually...if you read ANAM you'd know that's not true. Falling is numero uno. Don't fall, kids.

Right, but ANAM double counts falls and rappels if a fall resulted from a rappel. And while the most injuries or accidents are caused by falls, that does not imply it is the most dangerous aspect of climbing. A mistake rappelling is more "dangerous", in my opinion, than most mistakes while leading, etc.

Steph Abegg did some statistical analysis on the ANAM data some time ago, i don't recall exactly but i got the impression that falling on ground considered too easy to rope up for was the leading cause, which squares well with my own experiences. Of the half dozen injuries that have occurred to me and my friends in the past couple years, only one involved 5th class terrain.

The car accident comparison is really problematic, far more people are involved in car accidents, but far more people are driving and those accidents are far less likely to result in serious injury.

claiming that driving to the climb is more dangerous than the climb has always struck me as a cop out. Denying the risk doesn't make it go away, and its always better to be fully aware, like Kellogg certainly was, that these things can and do happen.

Rocky Mt SAR published an analysis of climbing accident reports in Boulder Country from 1998-2011, a total of 1857 incidents with 2198 victims. While it's restricted to a limited (mostly non-alpine) geography and to accidents handled by SAR, at least it's a comprehensive analysis of incidents in the area.

published version

initial version submitted (includes more plots)

Here is the breakdown of causes:

Mountaineeing is way down from tech climbing? I don't think so.

Jeff Samuels wrote:Mountaineeing is way down from tech climbing? I don't think so.

Way less people are mountaineering.

Another lesson that can be learned from ANAM is that more of us should be wearing helmets... Will it decrease the likelihood something happens: no. In large falls or large things falling will it make a difference: unlikely. In lots of situations does it make a huge difference: yes.

Jeff Samuels wrote:Mountaineeing is way down from tech climbing? I don't think so.

Again, note that those stats are for Boulder County only. There is very little terrain within the county limits that could be reasonably classified as "mountaineering". There is, on the other hand, a lot technical rock climb terrain, and a lot of people who participate in it.

You mean its NOT link cams and X4s?!?

Is this a riddle? I'm going with "falling". That covers lead, solo, rappels, belayer drops, etc.

I thought we were talikng about climbing, not "climbing in Boulder County"

Edit, didn't see page 2. The answer is definitely rap bolting.

I think it might be worth breaking the slip/fall category out into 5th class vs. not. I don't have a copy, but I suspect a lot of those deaths are mountaineering and not on rope.

Jacob Smith wrote:The car accident comparison is really problematic, far more people are involved in car accidents, but far more people are driving and those accidents are far less likely to result in serious injury. claiming that driving to the climb is more dangerous than the climb has always struck me as a cop out. Denying the risk doesn't make it go away, and its always better to be fully aware, like Kellogg certainly was, that these things can and do happen.

I agree. The reason so many people die or become seriously injured in auto accidents is not because driving is so inherently dangerous; it's that hundreds of millions of people do it every day.

Maybe these folks who think driving is more dangerous than climbing are drinking beers and texting on the way home from the crag?

Jason Kim wrote: I agree. The reason so many people die or become seriously injured in auto accidents is not because driving is so inherently dangerous; it's that hundreds of millions of people do it every day. Maybe these folks who think driving is more dangerous than climbing are drinking beers and texting on the way home from the crag?

If they are the same foulks smoking weed at the crag and climbing multipitch with people they just met on the internet then amen to natural selection.

Jeff Samuels wrote: If they are the same foulks smoking weed at the crag and climbing multipitch with people they just met on the internet then amen to natural selection.

I don't think you understand natural selection, or much else for that matter.

Jason Kim wrote: I don't think you understand natural selection, or much else for that matter.

natural selection has a lot to do with being dumb and dying young so the "dumb Genes" are not passed on to the next generation. NO?

Jeff Samuels wrote: natural selection has a lot to do with being dumb and dying young so the "dumb Genes" are not passed on to the next generation. NO?

Not really, no.

Jason Kim wrote: Not really, no.

yes, it's a yes on this one