Dirtbags less likely to get caught in avalanches

Just to be a contrarian... doesn't it seem like Albi Sole and John Kelly are bending over backwards to ignore the actual results of Sole's study--that, statistically, taking an avalanche course doesn't reduce the risk of being caught.

It seems like they are missing the big message--that skiers regard completing an avalanche course as a license to cut their safety margin narrower. Sole says it himself, without acknowledging the connection:

Yup _ i didn't see how Sole and the CAC spokesperson drew the conclusion that taking an avalanche course reduced risk from Sole's data. I'd actually like to see the results

I wonder if he controlled for penis size

If you're within the demographic identified by the study, I suggest you strongly consider staying out of the woods this winter!

-Burns

The main reason people with education about avalanches are statistically more likely to get caught is because they are out in the terrain more often, pure and simple. If you are the group who spends the most time under the knife, you are more likely to get cut. People without that course work do not go out often enough to take point statistically. Snowmobilers are trying to buck that trend and are getting closer every year.

As for median incomes of skiers, again not a lot of minorities ski, statistically middle to upper middle class activity. Check the readership of Powder, Backcountry and Telemark's media kit and you will see who makes up the readership. Also Laura Adams and a couple of other studies show why education is a double edge sword regarding more exposure to risk.

Not one for posting much but this is just a bit ridiculous.

The big message everyone but Lowell Skoog supposedly missed: "that skiers regard completing an avalanche course as a license to cut their safety margin narrower". First of all, without proof, this statement is a generalization or hypothesis. It's not a fact. Just so we're clear ... is this your opinion ... or a fact? Or is it your hypothesis? Your conclusion? Is it someone else's hypothesis or someone else's conclusion? Do you believe that skiers regard completing a recreational avalanche course as a license to cut their safety margin narrower?

In any case, human behaviour, not recreational avalanche courses, is the underlying issue. Hold on while I stick my tongue in my cheek. Alright, that's better. What if avalanche safety equipment altered human behaviour? Would you ski without a transceiver? Would you climb without a rope? What about a harness? Or are you afraid of having your behaviour altered? Do you think people "regard wearing transceivers as a license to cut their safety margin narrower"? Does this always happen? Does it happen some of the time? Do you actually have any idea or is this just your opinion?

I don't want to criticize your work, or get off topic, but I feel that since your presentation at the Northwest Snow & Avalanche Summit contained elements of avalanche education, and since we're talking about avalanche education, maybe you won't mind if I share my opinion. OPINION: The "op/ed" part of the presentation was interesting, with helpful information, and of course your photographs were beautiful. FACT: Much of the snowpack and weather information you include constitutes rules of thumb that might apply very roughly in the general case but will rarely be of any actual use at a specific time on a specific day. Your snowpack tips might constitute a very rough sort of distributional information but would be useless without integrating actual prior and current conditions. Best Case: Someone who has taken a recreational avalanche course will write down your rules and use them in the field during conditions that just happen to match your rules. Worst Case: Someone who hasn't taken a recreational avalanche course will write down your rules and use them in the field during conditions that are completely different. Just a thought! I don't mean to be critical, I just want to help.

One more quick question. Do you really think the CAC is bending over backwards to ignore the results of the study?

Thanks for your comments CookieMonster. I appreciate the opportunity to think about these questions.

The big message everyone but Lowell Skoog supposedly missed: "that skiers regard completing an avalanche course as a license to cut their safety margin narrower". First of all, without proof, this statement is a generalization or hypothesis. It's not a fact. Just so we're clear ... is this your opinion ... or a fact? Or is it your hypothesis? Your conclusion? Is it someone else's hypothesis or someone else's conclusion? Do you believe that skiers regard completing a recreational avalanche course as a license to cut their safety margin narrower?

This is my opinion, and of course it is a generalization. It doesn't apply to every individual or to the same degree in every case. I base this opinion on my reading of human nature (including my own nature), not on anybody else's thinking or any scientific study.

In any case, human behaviour, not recreational avalanche courses, is the underlying issue.

Yes. Human behavior is the whole issue. Education can alter human behavior. How many times have you heard people say, "Don't go skiing in avalanche terrain until you've taken an avalanche course."? The corollary to this statement is that once you've taken an avalanche course, it is presumedly okay to ski avalanche slopes. But is your increased knowledge really enough to counterbalance that decision?

Hold on while I stick my tongue in my cheek. Alright, that's better. What if avalanche safety equipment altered human behaviour? Would you ski without a transceiver? Would you climb without a rope? What about a harness? Or are you afraid of having your behaviour altered? Do you think people "regard wearing transceivers as a license to cut their safety margin narrower"? Does this always happen? Does it happen some of the time? Do you actually have any idea or is this just your opinion?

Let me turn this around. Do you think that nobody who wears an avalanche transceiver alters their behavior when they do it? Do you think that nobody unconsciously says to himself or herself, "I'm not sure about this slope, but I've got my transceiver on and my Avalung ready, and my buddy is watching me, so I'm going to ski it." Do you think that never happens?  I think it happens quite often. I've certainly done it. My point is to suggest that we should all (including me!) be more aware of when we might be doing this.

I don't want to criticize your work, or get off topic, but I feel that since your presentation at the Northwest Snow & Avalanche Summit contained elements of avalanche education, and since we're talking about avalanche education, maybe you won't mind if I share my opinion. OPINION: The "op/ed" part of the presentation was interesting, with helpful information, and of course your photographs were beautiful. FACT: Much of the snowpack and weather information you include constitutes rules of thumb that might apply very roughly in the general case but will rarely be of any actual use at a specific time on a specific day. Your snowpack tips might constitute a very rough sort of distributional information but would be useless without integrating actual prior and current conditions. Best Case: Someone who has taken a recreational avalanche course will write down your rules and use them in the field during conditions that just happen to match your rules. Worst Case: Someone who hasn't taken a recreational avalanche course will write down your rules and use them in the field during conditions that are completely different. Just a thought! I don't mean to be critical, I just want to help.

I appreciate these comments. I don't remember referring to any of the suggestions in my talk as "rules." I think I called them "tips" or "tactics." If you'd like to discuss specific situations where somebody might apply these tips inappropriately, I think that would be really interesting and useful. You can find the whole presentation here .

One more quick question. Do you really think the CAC is bending over backwards to ignore the results of the study?

My comment was based on what seemed like backpedaling in the Calgary Herald article. The study found no statistical benefit from avalanche training, but Albi Sole and John Kelly argued strenuously that this doesn't mean you shouldn't get avalanche training. I agree with them, but I think they missed an opportunity to open up a really interesting conversation. The conversation would be about whether avalanche training and safety gear can lead to a false sense of safety, and how to counteract that.

The limitations of newspaper journalism probably made this conversation impossible in the Calgary Herald article. But the increased emphasis on human factors in conferences like NSAS shows that avalanche educators understand that technical knowledge isn't enough.

I don't know if it's true that I am willing to ski more dangerous terrain when I have the correct avy gear, but I know I've decided not to ski questionable slopes when I was skiing alone. In other words, the lack of rescue options makes me more cautious in the backcountry. Same effect, different mental process to get there.

I know it's old, but I'm reminded of Ian McCammon's 2002 study, Evidence of Heuristic Traps in Recreational Avalanche Accidents . While he found no evidence of a relationship between avalanche training and avalanche accidents, he agrees that is due to people who are willing to enter more dangerous terrain are more likely to take additional training.

What I found really interesting was the heuristic traps that got people caught did have a relationship to training. Accidents involving those with no avalanche training did not have a statistically significant relationship with any heuristic traps -- the skiers were blindly doing what they wanted, unaware of the danger. However, those with training were most likely to get caught in a heuristic trap. The strongest relationship was between those with advanced avalanche training and the familiarity trap -- namely, those who knew the most about avalanches frequently ignored avalanche danger while on slopes they knew well. Basically, over time they would analyse and determine that a particular slope was safe, and eventually they would stop thinking about it. Mountain conditions change, and the slope they've always considered safe suddenly isn't anymore.