Route Guide    Partners    Forum    Photos    What's New    Journal        
Sign Up  |   Log In:Login with Facebook
REI Community
Very Interesting Infographic on Accidents in North America
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
Page 1 of 1.  
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
Feb 26, 2016
Rock Climbing Photo: Belaying 2nd (or was it 3rd? 4th?) on Turk's Head ...

I found this very interesting, and a few points were particularly surprising, namely:

Most accidents occurred during ASCENT (70%) rather than DESCENT (30%)
-This flies in the face of conventional wisdom that rappelling/lowering off the ends of your rope is where most accidents occur. Granted, the study does not distinguish between fatal and non-fatal accidents; maybe the numbers would look different then? Still, an interesting graphic. I also found the "nut pulled" incident rate surprisingly high; did they lump cams and other forms of pro in on this category, or is it really that common?
Ted Pinson
From Chicago, IL
Joined Jul 11, 2014
178 points
Feb 26, 2016
Ted Pinson wrote:
I found this very interesting, and a few points were particularly surprising, namely: Most accidents occurred during ASCENT (70%) rather than DESCENT (30%) -This flies in the face of conventional wisdom that rappelling/lowering off the ends of your rope is where most accidents occur. Granted, the study does not distinguish between fatal and non-fatal accidents; maybe the numbers would look different then? Still, an interesting graphic. I also found the "nut pulled" incident rate surprisingly high; did they lump cams and other forms of pro in on this category, or is it really that common?


If I recall correctly, ANAM uses "nut pulled" to mean "protection pulled" more generically.

As for the ascent vs. descent numbers, that's been established for quite a few years and is a commonly perpetuated myth. However, rappelling and lowering errors account for an exceedingly large number of *preventable* accidents, and encompass most of the accidents that occur on descent. They are also nearly always due to subjective factors, rather than objective factors. Consequently, eliminating these preventable errors would cause a sizable reduction in overall accident rate.
Derek DeBruin
Joined Jul 12, 2010
506 points
Feb 26, 2016
Rock Climbing Photo: girl40
The main problem with the graphic is the conflating of alpine and rock climbing. Take out the alpine and the ratio would shift quite a bit the other way. Healyje
From PDX
Joined Jan 31, 2006
225 points
Feb 26, 2016
Rock Climbing Photo: Bouldering
Ted Pinson wrote:
Most accidents occurred during ASCENT (70%) rather than DESCENT (30%) -This flies in the face of conventional wisdom that rappelling/lowering off the ends of your rope is where most accidents occur.


These data include hiking, mountaineering, scrambling, etc. So the "descent" here is not just rappelling/lowering, but includes hiking/scrambling/downclimbing. You can take a look at the raw data linked below, between 1951 and 2012 there were 1,223 accidents on the descent, 345 were rappelling related accidents.

Similarly, the "ascent" here includes hiking, scrambling, mountaineering, etc. So you cannot draw any conclusion from this mixed data to support or debunk the theory that more accident happens on rappelling/lowering in rock climbing.

aac-publications.s3.amazonaws....
aikibujin
From Castle Rock, CO
Joined Oct 14, 2014
263 points
Feb 26, 2016
Rock Climbing Photo: Belaying 2nd (or was it 3rd? 4th?) on Turk's Head ...
Healyje the problem with that is that alpine makes up a very small % of accidents, since it has a much lower capita compared to rock climbing. Aiki has a good point about conflating unroped hiking/mountaineering, so it would be interesting to focus exclusively on the data for technical rock climbing. Ted Pinson
From Chicago, IL
Joined Jul 11, 2014
178 points
Feb 27, 2016
Rock Climbing Photo: girl40
I think you're interpreting the rock vs snow aspect of chart a bit too literal - given the states they are highlighting I think you can assume a bunch of that rock is alpine / mixed terrain rock and not pure rock climbing. Healyje
From PDX
Joined Jan 31, 2006
225 points
Feb 28, 2016
I think it makes more sense to think of the relative risks of different activities over time.

For example, accidents per hour of ascent vs. per hour of descent.

I suspect that in most climbs the descent is faster than the ascent.

So, even if the data show a greater number of ascending accidents, that doesn't tell us the relative accident rate; descent may well be significantly more dangerous (per unit time).
mbk
Joined Jul 3, 2013
0 points
Feb 28, 2016
Rock Climbing Photo: The crux of 6' man roof (5.11d).
An interesting point one of my instructors brought up during SAR training (allegedly compiled from ANAM data) was that while most accidents occur while ascending the #1 cause of fatalities were rappelling related accidents.

mbk wrote:
So, even if the data show a greater number of ascending accidents, that doesn't tell us the relative accident rate; descent may well be significantly more dangerous (per unit time).


Since we're talking specifically about climbing (as opposed to canyoneering or recreational rappelling) I don't think the rate per unit time makes a huge difference in the analysis. I would be more interested in seeing the rate of accidents vs different modes of descent.
will ar
From San Antonio, TX
Joined Jan 11, 2010
231 points
Feb 28, 2016
Rock Climbing Photo: The traverse out to the Yellow Ridge on the Dogsti...
Far less time is spent descending; many climbs have walk-offs and so there is no real descent component.

I've always been a bit confused by the non-overlapping nature of the ANAM's categories. For example, a single accident could easily be classified in several categories, eg fall or slip on rock, exceeding abilities, nut pulled out, off route, and equipment failure could all refer to the same accident. But these are fallaciously depicted in the graphic as mutually exclusive regions, which clearly misrepresents the reality of the corresponding accidents. Moreover, if these categories are treated as mutually exclusive, then certain accidents are being counted multiple times in any numerical analysis, so it is hard to get a clear picture of what's occurring.
rgold
From Poughkeepsie, NY
Joined Feb 15, 2008
544 points
Feb 28, 2016
Rock Climbing Photo: Belaying 2nd (or was it 3rd? 4th?) on Turk's Head ...
True! You exceeded your abilities, causing you to fall or slip on rock...and your nut pulled. Ted Pinson
From Chicago, IL
Joined Jul 11, 2014
178 points


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 1 of 1.