Most Dangerous Place to Climb

George Perkins wrote:

These places would certainly have high accident rates, they are some of the most populated crags around. So the traffic factor makes a huge difference

Tradiban wrote:

That shows an important difference. Tahquitz isn't the most dangerous place to climb, it's just where alot of people climb and therefore the accident rate is overall higher.

Not to be a nit-picker but "accident rate" traditionally refers to accidents per 100,000 people doing that thing. It's just a ratio. So the accident rate at Tahquitz probably isn't higher but the raw NUMBER of accidents is high because a lot of people go there. Or put differently, it has a high concentration of climbing accidents because it has a high concentration of climbers.

I wonder how Tahquitz compares to the Yosemite Valley in terms of per-capita climbing accidents?

Tradiban wrote:

Well that depends on your definition of "mountain", and your definition of "death blocks", and your definition of "dangerous".

This isn't a good faith question. You were the one who coined the term "death blocks" so you're not confused about what that means. "Dangerous" is a gradient, but I think we both agree death blocks are dangerous. And "mountain", isn't important to my argument--you're the only one who is making the claim that Tahquitz isn't relatively dangerous because it's a mountain and other mountains are dangerous--it goes without saying that simply classifying your climbing spot as a mountain doesn't mean it's safe.

Is the most "dangerous" place the one with the most death or the one with the most potential for death?

Not exactly either, but closer to the latter. No one has died on the surface of Venus but I think we can agree that the hurricanes of boiling sulfuric acid make it a pretty dangerous place. If danger were determined by death count then hospitals would be some of the most dangerous places around.

Really, I think given your point at this junction is arguing about fairly standard definitions of words, my point is made.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

This isn't a good faith question. You were the one who coined the term "death blocks" so you're not confused about what that means. "Dangerous" is a gradient, but I think we both agree death blocks are dangerous. And mountain, isn't important to my argument--you're the only one who is making the claim that Tahquitz isn't relatively dangerous because it's a mountain and other mountains are dangerous--it goes without saying that simply classifying your climbing spot as a mountain doesn't mean it's safe.

Not exactly either, but closer to the latter. No one has died on the surface of Venus but I think we can agree that the hurricanes of boiling sulfuric acid make it a pretty dangerous place. If danger were determined by death count then hospitals would be some of the most dangerous places around.

Really, I think given your point at this junction is arguing about fairly standard definitions of words, my point is made.

So, what's your point?

I point at your pointing to prove a point about points

cragmantoo wrote:

I point at your pointing to prove a point about points

Shhhhhh...you are ruining my trolling of the troll.

Please we all really want to know the most dangerous place to climb so we don't go there. Stay on topic!

Kaner wrote:

Capitol Peak near Aspen has 5 deaths in 6 weeks this summer.

So climbing is far safer than skiing

Mike Mooney wrote:

So climbing is far safer than skiing

Probably

Just curious why Fisher Towers isn't in the discussion for most dangerous?

Tradiban wrote:

Shhhhhh...you are ruining my trolling of the troll.

Please we all really want to know the most dangerous place to climb so we don't go there. Stay on topic!

The Gunks is the most dangerous.  Don't go there.  

A year or so ago I was belaying the leader when a couch sized boulder fell 30 feet to my left in the Nears.  Down rappelled a couple of young guys with shiny new gear laughing about the size of that rock.  It made me sick. 

On a busy weekend in the Gunks you'll see an ambulance or three.

Also, I climbed trad for many years before I ever made it to a sport crag.  I don't think we were unsafe switching to sport, but we definitely did goofy things.  Exhibit A: the first sport route I used lockers and a sling to equalize an anchor off the bolts at the top, then belayed up my second.  We both simurapped the route.  That was super goofy.

Mt. Whitney walk up trail.

Tradiban wrote:

Shhhhhh...you are ruining my trolling of the troll.

Please we all really want to know the most dangerous place to climb so we don't go there. Stay on topic!

Don't troll my trolling of your trolling of the troll

Mike Mooney wrote:

So climbing is far safer than skiing

Capitol Peak deaths have all been hikers on a high altitude peak with a famous knife ridge and lots of notoriously loose 4th class scrambling; choss piles stacked on cliffs.  I know it's been successfully skied (not aware of any ski deaths on Capitol, but the chances sure exist).

Not sure what you're implying?  I do agree with your statement though.  Skiing involves extreme weather, avalanche risk, cliffs, falls, high speeds, etc.  Single-pitch sport/trad climbing, in my opinion, is safer than skiing, rafting, mountain biking (high speed crashes), road biking (vehicle hazards) and golf.  Not sure why, but golfers just seem like a dangerous bunch.

The most dangerous places are multipitch trad crags relatively close to urban areas. Crags with higher numbers of average pitches, and without single pitch sport and trad lines, are probably the most dangerous.

On a multipitch trad climb, you can get hit by a falling rock knocked loose by a higher group, your gear can pull, and you can screw up your rappel. Single pitch sport climbers don't have to worry much about any of those things. There's nobody above you knocking rocks down onto your head, and popular climbing areas tend to have well maintained bolts and convenient anchors that don't require rappelling. Trad crags also tend to get more traffic on very easy (below 5.8) climbs, which tend to have more dangerous falls than sport climbs in the 5.8-5.10 range, which tend to be what gets swarmed at sport crags.

Looking at accident reports, most accidents are from climbing falls, rockfall, rappel error, or lowering accidents. I only see sport climbs coming up in the last category, while the first is the most common. The first is the most common. (This is ignoring mountaineering accidents, which are also common.)

Smith Rock is a good example of this. It had two accidents in 2015. Both were trad climbing accidents where gear failed to hold a fall, while no sport climbing accidents were reported, despite Smith being swarmed with thousands of mostly sport climbers every year, many fairly high on the gumb-o-meter.

The Flatirons, Yosemite, Tahquitz, and the Gunks all fit that description of an accident-rich area, and they all have a good number of accidents.

Source: http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/search/solr?all=&article_publication=anam&article_copyright_date=2015&article_article_type=&article_pub_title=&route_name=

George Perkins wrote:

Accidents in North American Mountaineering has a bias in its reporting. The bias is in the events they choose to cover, locations covered, and their analysis (if any) of the accident. It's a bias on the part of the AAC and not necessarily a bias in reporting accidents to the AAC. Of course, the AAC can't report every accident, or know about every accident, but they do ignore (not publish) accidents that are worthy of publication. It appears as if some of those accidents are not being published because they don't wish to shine a negative light on people or organizations they have a relationship with.

I would agree that the Tetons, RMNP, etc, do see plenty of traffic so the number of accidents, as you say, may have less to do with the danger and more to do with the number of climbers. A baby crib is more dangerous than any mountain if you only look at the numbers.

As for the most dangerous mountain, I'd say K2.

Wikipedia: "K2 is known as the Savage Mountain due to the extreme difficulty of ascent. It has the second-highest fatality rate among the eight thousanders. With around 300 successful summits and 77 fatalities, about one person dies on the mountain for every four who summit.[5] It is more difficult and hazardous to reach the peak of K2 from the Chinese side, so it is usually climbed from the Pakistani side. Unlike Annapurna, the mountain with the highest fatality-to-summit rate (191 summits and 61 fatalities),[6] or the other eight thousanders, K2 has never been climbed during winter.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2

Obviously, many mountains have challenges like K2; however, I like the idea of looking at the number of fatalities / accidents per summit for a mountain, and the inherent dangers. Additionally, I'm keeping esoteric lines / mountains out of the equation.

High altitude, big wall locations..... like The Diamond.   The weather changes, remote location, and commitment level makes for high danger.

So we're counting other climbers as objective hazards? What if we ruled that out? ... because I have some ideas ...

Tim Lutz wrote:

out of bed

I got a bloody nose falling out of my top bunk while asleep in the middle of the night when I was 7 years old. Lucky it wasn't worse.