Accidents by the Numbers

[Trotter]

I don't claim any expertise in accident analysis, but one thing seems to be worth mentioning to me:

About 4500 accidents due to falling all total from the North American chart.
75 accidents due to lightning all total from same chart.
You are more likely to be injured from falling than from being struck by lightning.

So as easy as it is to say sitting in a quiet room here, one lesson that we can all try to remember is:

If you find yourself in a position above treeline and lightning is very close (flash-boom), try very hard to not panic and outrun the lightning. You are more likely to fall trying to descend too rapidly in an attempt to "outrun" the lightning (which is impossible anyway) than you are to actually be struck by lightning.

This is how statistics get read and used to draw incorrect conclusions. You're taking those two stats as totally isolated and in an absolute sense. Reality is more complex and there are factors at play that the statistics do not show. For example, you're probably "less likely" to die from a lightening strike on the whole simply because fewer people are exposed to lightening danger than to fall danger. The stats presented don't tell us, but it's probably a solid assumption. If you're on a ridge in a storm, your chances of dying in a lightening strike right then far exceed the average for climbers as a group. Likewise, while your probability of getting eaten by the Yeti are currently lower than your chances of winning Powerball, if he's right in front of you saying he's going to eat you, your chances likely much higher. You aren't going to stand there without a care in the world and say "eh, I have a better chance of winning Powerball. Nothing to worry about."

To think of it more simply, think of people that quote overall death probability for a national population and draw conclusions like "driving is more dangerous than mountain climbing - because your percentage chance of dying in a car crash is far higher than your chance of dying on a mountain." That IS what the stats say, but there's underlying information that isn't being taken into account - namely: nearly the entire adult population drives, and relatively very few climb mountains. Adjust the stats to include only people that actually partake in the given activity you'll likely find that mountain climbing is indeed far more dangerous than driving.

I understand what you are saying and I did not mean to imply that if a person is in a lightning situation that they are (4500 / 75 =) 60 times more likely to fall while descending than to be struck by lightning.

We obviously don't have specific statistics concerning the state of mind or panic surrounding everyone who has been injured due to a fall in the mountains, or how many were under duress due to impending weather. However, I think it is still fair to say that the risk of falling trying to "outrun" lightning is much greater than the decreased risk of being struck by successfully "outrunning" the lightning. That was the point I was trying to make.

Thats a fair opinion, but theres absolutely no statistical evidence to back it up. I think thats the point the everyone else is trying to make. That everyone can have opinions, but actual hard facts are lacking, even with these new statistics we have.

[mattpayne11]

My data set is small (4 years), but I have come to some interesting conclusions about mountain deaths in Colorado...

75% are due to a fall.
Inexperience, off-route, loose rock, and climbing solo are leading contributing factors.
And 53% occur during descent.

I stopped tracking in 2014.

http://www.100summits.com/articles/colo ... 13#Summary

[rob runkle]

I don't claim any expertise in accident analysis, but one thing seems to be worth mentioning to me:

About 4500 accidents due to falling all total from the North American chart.
75 accidents due to lightning all total from same chart.
You are more likely to be injured from falling than from being struck by lightning.

So as easy as it is to say sitting in a quiet room here, one lesson that we can all try to remember is:

If you find yourself in a position above treeline and lightning is very close (flash-boom), try very hard to not panic and outrun the lightning. You are more likely to fall trying to descend too rapidly in an attempt to "outrun" the lightning (which is impossible anyway) than you are to actually be struck by lightning.

Give the man a prize. Several on this site have been preaching this for years. Jim Davies, myself and several others.
If you combine all of the fall related categories, it is OVER 100x more likely than lightning.

[rob runkle]

I don't claim any expertise in accident analysis, but one thing seems to be worth mentioning to me:

About 4500 accidents due to falling all total from the North American chart.
75 accidents due to lightning all total from same chart.
You are more likely to be injured from falling than from being struck by lightning.

So as easy as it is to say sitting in a quiet room here, one lesson that we can all try to remember is:

If you find yourself in a position above treeline and lightning is very close (flash-boom), try very hard to not panic and outrun the lightning. You are more likely to fall trying to descend too rapidly in an attempt to "outrun" the lightning (which is impossible anyway) than you are to actually be struck by lightning.

This is how statistics get read and used to draw incorrect conclusions. You're taking those two stats as totally isolated and in an absolute sense. Reality is more complex and there are factors at play that the statistics do not show. For example, you're probably "less likely" to die from a lightening strike on the whole simply because fewer people are exposed to lightening danger than to fall danger. The stats presented don't tell us, but it's probably a solid assumption. If you're on a ridge in a storm, your chances of dying in a lightening strike right then far exceed the average for climbers as a group. Likewise, while your probability of getting eaten by the Yeti are currently lower than your chances of winning Powerball, if he's right in front of you saying he's going to eat you, your chances likely much higher. You aren't going to stand there without a care in the world and say "eh, I have a better chance of winning Powerball. Nothing to worry about."

To think of it more simply, think of people that quote overall death probability for a national population and draw conclusions like "driving is more dangerous than mountain climbing - because your percentage chance of dying in a car crash is far higher than your chance of dying on a mountain." That IS what the stats say, but there's underlying information that isn't being taken into account - namely: nearly the entire adult population drives, and relatively very few climb mountains. Adjust the stats to include only people that actually partake in the given activity you'll likely find that mountain climbing is indeed far more dangerous than driving.

I understand what you are saying and I did not mean to imply that if a person is in a lightning situation that they are (4500 / 75 =) 60 times more likely to fall while descending than to be struck by lightning.

We obviously don't have specific statistics concerning the state of mind or panic surrounding everyone who has been injured due to a fall in the mountains, or how many were under duress due to impending weather. However, I think it is still fair to say that the risk of falling trying to "outrun" lightning is much greater than the decreased risk of being struck by successfully "outrunning" the lightning. That was the point I was trying to make.

To support Sean's point...

AyeYo, Where do you get the evidence to suggest that less people are exposed to lightning than by slip and fall? How many people climb standard routes on Grays/Torreys, Bierstadt, Sherman, Quandary, versus the ones where fall potential is MUCH HIGHER? Wouldn't those on the easy routes be much less likely to slip/fall versus those on the more challenging routes. This doesn't even take into account the fact that people can CHOOSE to not venture on to more risky terrain, and they can all but guarantee that they will not be thrust onto the risky terrain if they choose not to. In the case of lightning, Mother Nature has been known to ignore the individual's choices. She can pretty much throw lightning at you anytime she wants to, no matter the weather forecast, or the look of the skies. When you are 2-3 hours from safety, Mother Nature can change things on you very quickly.

The degree of an individuals personal risk taking may contribute to their individual likelihood of one occurrence or the other. But, the data as a whole consists of the whole range of risk takers for both types of event. There are people who are more/less likely to run from clouds and people more/less likely to venture onto more risky terrain. If you happened to be a person that does not fear clouds at all, but are scared to death of heights, then the data may skew for you to change the ratio of lightning to fall from say 100:1 to something lower. Similar to if you are not afraid of heights, but have a huge respect for the white puffy things. In that case, your fall potential to lightning potential would shift to even higher fall potential.

Having said that, the ratio of slip/fall to lightning is in the order of magnitude of 100x more likely based on this data. That is a HUGE difference. No rationale can discount the fact that slip/fall is a CRAP LOAD (statistical term) more likely than lightning. Period! And, that probably even applies to the people who have zero fear of lightning and run around naked in storms with metal rods sticking out of their @#%$#...

[paully]

This is how statistics get read and used to draw incorrect conclusions. You're taking those two stats as totally isolated and in an absolute sense. Reality is more complex and there are factors at play that the statistics do not show. For example, you're probably "less likely" to die from a lightening strike on the whole simply because fewer people are exposed to lightening danger than to fall danger. The stats presented don't tell us, but it's probably a solid assumption. If you're on a ridge in a storm, your chances of dying in a lightening strike right then far exceed the average for climbers as a group. Likewise, while your probability of getting eaten by the Yeti are currently lower than your chances of winning Powerball, if he's right in front of you saying he's going to eat you, your chances likely much higher. You aren't going to stand there without a care in the world and say "eh, I have a better chance of winning Powerball. Nothing to worry about."

To think of it more simply, think of people that quote overall death probability for a national population and draw conclusions like "driving is more dangerous than mountain climbing - because your percentage chance of dying in a car crash is far higher than your chance of dying on a mountain." That IS what the stats say, but there's underlying information that isn't being taken into account - namely: nearly the entire adult population drives, and relatively very few climb mountains. Adjust the stats to include only people that actually partake in the given activity you'll likely find that mountain climbing is indeed far more dangerous than driving.

I understand what you are saying and I did not mean to imply that if a person is in a lightning situation that they are (4500 / 75 =) 60 times more likely to fall while descending than to be struck by lightning.

We obviously don't have specific statistics concerning the state of mind or panic surrounding everyone who has been injured due to a fall in the mountains, or how many were under duress due to impending weather. However, I think it is still fair to say that the risk of falling trying to "outrun" lightning is much greater than the decreased risk of being struck by successfully "outrunning" the lightning. That was the point I was trying to make.

To support Sean's point...

AyeYo, Where do you get the evidence to suggest that less people are exposed to lightning than by slip and fall? How many people climb standard routes on Grays/Torreys, Bierstadt, Sherman, Quandary, versus the ones where fall potential is MUCH HIGHER? Wouldn't those on the easy routes be much less likely to slip/fall versus those on the more challenging routes. This doesn't even take into account the fact that people can CHOOSE to not venture on to more risky terrain, and they can all but guarantee that they will not be thrust onto the risky terrain if they choose not to. In the case of lightning, Mother Nature has been known to ignore the individual's choices. She can pretty much throw lightning at you anytime she wants to, no matter the weather forecast, or the look of the skies. When you are 2-3 hours from safety, Mother Nature can change things on you very quickly.

The degree of an individuals personal risk taking may contribute to their individual likelihood of one occurrence or the other. But, the data as a whole consists of the whole range of risk takers for both types of event. There are people who are more/less likely to run from clouds and people more/less likely to venture onto more risky terrain. If you happened to be a person that does not fear clouds at all, but are scared to death of heights, then the data may skew for you to change the ratio of lightning to fall from say 100:1 to something lower. Similar to if you are not afraid of heights, but have a huge respect for the white puffy things. In that case, your fall potential to lightning potential would shift to even higher fall potential.

Having said that, the ratio of slip/fall to lightning is in the order of magnitude of 100x more likely based on this data. That is a HUGE difference. No rationale can discount the fact that slip/fall is a CRAP LOAD (statistical term) more likely than lightning. Period! And, that probably even applies to the people who have zero fear of lightning and run around naked in storms with metal rods sticking out of their @#%$#...

I believe AyeYo's point is that you cannot use the originally stated statistic on deaths by falling vs. deaths by lightning to infer the relative likelihood of the two in any given scenario. An extreme and obvious example of this is that you are far more likely to die climbing than you are driving to the TH prior to that climb, even though 'statistics' will tell us that far more people die in car accidents than in climbing accidents. We can argue all day about which (falling or lightning strike) is more likely during an on-peak storm, but the fact is that the statistics stated thus far do not confirm or deny either one. As with everything in life, it's best to look at each situation independently. I have spent a fair amount of time in the high country, but can only remember two instances where I felt threatened by lightning. Compare this to the dozens (hundreds?) of times where I knew that falling was a possibility. So of course falling deaths are FAR more common, that's relatively meaningless if I'm in the middle of a severe storm and am wondering whether I should be more worried about one vs. the other. If I'm on relatively safe terrain (i.e. no exposure to a massive fall) then I'm likely going to put some hustle in my step and attempt to get to some cover quickly. If I'm on a knife edge ridge or the side of a cliff, I'm likely going to force myself to maintain a safe pace, knowing that falling (on wet rock no less) is far more likely in this scenario.

[Sean Nunn]

As with everything in life, it's best to look at each situation independently. I have spent a fair amount of time in the high country, but can only remember two instances where I felt threatened by lightning. Compare this to the dozens (hundreds?) of times where I knew that falling was a possibility. So of course falling deaths are FAR more common, that's relatively meaningless if I'm in the middle of a severe storm and am wondering whether I should be more worried about one vs. the other. If I'm on relatively safe terrain (i.e. no exposure to a massive fall) then I'm likely going to put some hustle in my step and attempt to get to some cover quickly. If I'm on a knife edge ridge or the side of a cliff, I'm likely going to force myself to maintain a safe pace, knowing that falling (on wet rock no less) is far more likely in this scenario.

You are speaking as someone with a world of experience in climbing, and you are correct.
I am thinking of people who are fairly new to climbing.
We could argue endlessly about the nuances of the statistics, and I may be wrong about those nuances.
My point was directed to relatively inexperienced climbers: if you find yourself in a sketchy situation and there is lightning nearby, realize that it doesn't do much good to try to outrun the lightning if doing so causes to make rash decisions concerning foot placement/hand holds, and thereby fall.

[rob runkle]

I believe AyeYo's point is that you cannot use the originally stated statistic on deaths by falling vs. deaths by lightning to infer the relative likelihood of the two in any given scenario. An extreme and obvious example of this is that you are far more likely to die climbing than you are driving to the TH prior to that climb, even though 'statistics' will tell us that far more people die in car accidents than in climbing accidents. We can argue all day about which (falling or lightning strike) is more likely during an on-peak storm, but the fact is that the statistics stated thus far do not confirm or deny either one. As with everything in life, it's best to look at each situation independently. I have spent a fair amount of time in the high country, but can only remember two instances where I felt threatened by lightning. Compare this to the dozens (hundreds?) of times where I knew that falling was a possibility. So of course falling deaths are FAR more common, that's relatively meaningless if I'm in the middle of a severe storm and am wondering whether I should be more worried about one vs. the other. If I'm on relatively safe terrain (i.e. no exposure to a massive fall) then I'm likely going to put some hustle in my step and attempt to get to some cover quickly. If I'm on a knife edge ridge or the side of a cliff, I'm likely going to force myself to maintain a safe pace, knowing that falling (on wet rock no less) is far more likely in this scenario.

Even the most basic statistics need to have a numerator and a denominator in order to be able to do relative comparisons between data sets; and the assumptions about the data sets have to be reasonable. That is where the car accidents analogy DOES become valid. Stating the number of people that die on 14ers each year (est 10 people) versus the number of people that die in car accidents in the US each year (~35,000), and trying to compare them is invalid. But, comparing the rate of death for these things can be somewhat valid, with some assumptions. The primary assumption is that the individual in consideration is acting somewhat like the general population for the various statistics. In other words, they are pretty much average, or not far from average. Average driver, average miles driven per year, with no extreme driving risks like DUIs, excessive speeding, etc.. Average 14er climber, with mix of hard and easy climbing, average number of peaks per year, etc.. Most people are probably close enough to average for this to be valid. In the case of 14ers, estimates are 500k people climb them per year. That yields 500,000/10 = 1 in 50,000 people die per year. For auto accidents, that is 350million/35,000 = 1 in 10,000 people per year. As stated above that is based on several assumptions that have to be reasonable assumptions, and for most people they should be close enough. Close enough, when the difference between these statistics is 5x more likely to die in car accidents than on a 14er. 5x difference is HUGE. In the case of the slips/falls versus lightning, the difference was 100x, which is absolutely massive, and can account for a huge amount of variance from the assumptions, and still be totally valid, or at least directionally correct.

As for a specific event at a specific point in time, yes you are correct, if those events are not reasonably close in scale. In the example: die on 14ers versus, drive to trailhead, it depends. Is your 14er approximately the same percentage of 14er time as your drive to the trailhead (based on a years worth of either)? Probably not. But, possibly, if the drive is more treacherous and a particularly long drive, and the 14er in question is one of the easier 14ers.

[rob runkle]

My point was directed to relatively inexperienced climbers: if you find yourself in a sketchy situation and there is lightning nearby, realize that it doesn't do much good to try to outrun the lightning if doing so causes to make rash decisions concerning foot placement/hand holds, and thereby fall.

[peter303]

Slightly better driving versus hiking numbers.

Number of 14er climbs per year calculated from CFI counters on 20 popular trails 319,000 for 2016. At ten tragedies per year, that is about 1:30,000.

US fatality rate per billion miles driven is 12.5 or one per 80 million miles. If the average 14er trip is 200 miles, then that is one auto fatality per 400,000 trips. Or about one tenth the climbing rate.

[rob runkle]

Slightly better driving versus hiking numbers.

Number of 14er climbs per year calculated from CFI counters on 20 popular trails 319,000 for 2016. At ten tragedies per year, that is about 1:30,000.

US fatality rate per billion miles driven is 12.5 or one per 80 million miles. If the average 14er trip is 200 miles, then that is one auto fatality per 400,000 trips. Or about one tenth the climbing rate.

Agreed. Nice analysis.

But, in most cases, where someone has made the comment, that "driving to trail head is more dangerous than the hike," people were talking about peaks like Grays, Torreys, Quandary, Bierstadt,Sherman, etc.. All by the standard route. And, those are probably the ones included in your 319,000 number (20 popular trails). The 1:30,000 doesn't really apply in that case; since 10 per year is no where near the rate on the 20 popular trails. At most, 1 per year on these peaks, most years none.