3 ms·

I'm a snowboarder, and, wanting to better understand the risks I assume when I go off-piste -- and how to avoid them -- I took an avalanche safety course a few

by rosser 17y ago

I'm a snowboarder, and, wanting to better understand the risks I assume when I go off-piste -- and how to avoid them -- I took an avalanche safety course a few years ago. At one point during the lecture portion, the instructor said something to the effect that the single most positively correlated statistic with avalanche fatalities is whether there's a girl in the party. I don't know how the data behind that claim was obtained, or even if it's simply an assertion offered to make us think twice before hitting a questionable slope, but it's worked so far: I'm still here, and I've remembered it every time I've strapped on my beacon since.

shadowsun7 17y ago
Sounds like a great idea for a research project: Correlation Between Hotness of Girl and Magnitude of Avalanche.
hristov 17y ago
So every time you strap on your beacon, you say to yourself "Remember rosser: be safe, no girls!"
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  The text in your quotation marks reads to me like a religious pro-celibacy statement, while incidentally sounding like a pro-homosexuality statement. You may have just added another link to the long held belief of mine that the religious right are simply self-denying homosexuals.
  - Groxx 17y ago
    ... because you vastly distorted a humorous remark? Seems like that link is caused by your biases, instead of actually existing on its own.
  - cryptnoob 17y ago
    > the religious right are simply self-denying homosexuals You're quite the dick, aren't you? But that's OK, because you're so smart. It's OK to be a dick if you're smart.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
sliverstorm 17y ago
There's two absolutely vital question to ask here. Was it the guys or the girl(s) who died most of the time? Did they rule out the guys trying to protect the girl? They are entirely logical assumptions to make, but if you're trying to show something you shouldn't assume.
- rosser 17y ago
  For your first question, I can only extrapolate from my own experience. Having, thankfully, never been in an avalanche or with a group that triggered one, take that for what it's worth. That said, the groups I've been out of bounds with have guys outnumbering girls at a ratio well over 10:1, so simple odds are against the guys. The few times there have been women with us, they've tended to be a bit more level-headed and safety-conscious. (As always, the plural of anecdote is not data.) Your second question doesn't really make sense. First, there's no "protecting" someone from an avalanche. In a slide, you're looking at kilotons of frozen water moving towards you at a speed limited only by gravity and the slope of the mountain face it's falling down. If you're lucky, you're "only" buried in something whose density upon settling approaches that of concrete, and not carried into the trees at speeds that will pulp you on impact. Moreover, when you're riding out of bounds, you take your runs one at a time, precisely because of the avalanche risk. If there is a slide, the rest of the group will come looking for you once it has subsided. The odds of finding one person buried in an avalanche are bad enough; looking for more than one at a time pretty well guarantees someone's not coming home that day -- or ever again.
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    I know the odds are against the guys. What I mean is, assuming there are 9 guys and 1 girl, does the girl die 10% of the time? More? Less? The simple statement that 'there are more deaths when a girl is present' could be because the girls are the ones getting killed by the avalanche. Not saying that's the case, just pointing out your statement seemed to assume it's NOT the case. You're right, my mistake. Gotcha.
    - rosser 17y ago

by rosser 17y ago

shadowsun7 17y ago

Sounds like a great idea for a research project: Correlation Between Hotness of Girl and Magnitude of Avalanche.

hristov 17y ago

So every time you strap on your beacon, you say to yourself "Remember rosser: be safe, no girls!"

electromagnetic 17y ago
The text in your quotation marks reads to me like a religious pro-celibacy statement, while incidentally sounding like a pro-homosexuality statement. You may have just added another link to the long held belief of mine that the religious right are simply self-denying homosexuals.
- Groxx 17y ago
  ... because you vastly distorted a humorous remark? Seems like that link is caused by your biases, instead of actually existing on its own.
- cryptnoob 17y ago
  > the religious right are simply self-denying homosexuals You're quite the dick, aren't you? But that's OK, because you're so smart. It's OK to be a dick if you're smart.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

sliverstorm 17y ago

There's two absolutely vital question to ask here. Was it the guys or the girl(s) who died most of the time? Did they rule out the guys trying to protect the girl? They are entirely logical assumptions to make, but if you're trying to show something you shouldn't assume.

rosser 17y ago
For your first question, I can only extrapolate from my own experience. Having, thankfully, never been in an avalanche or with a group that triggered one, take that for what it's worth. That said, the groups I've been out of bounds with have guys outnumbering girls at a ratio well over 10:1, so simple odds are against the guys. The few times there have been women with us, they've tended to be a bit more level-headed and safety-conscious. (As always, the plural of anecdote is not data.) Your second question doesn't really make sense. First, there's no "protecting" someone from an avalanche. In a slide, you're looking at kilotons of frozen water moving towards you at a speed limited only by gravity and the slope of the mountain face it's falling down. If you're lucky, you're "only" buried in something whose density upon settling approaches that of concrete, and not carried into the trees at speeds that will pulp you on impact. Moreover, when you're riding out of bounds, you take your runs one at a time, precisely because of the avalanche risk. If there is a slide, the rest of the group will come looking for you once it has subsided. The odds of finding one person buried in an avalanche are bad enough; looking for more than one at a time pretty well guarantees someone's not coming home that day -- or ever again.
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  I know the odds are against the guys. What I mean is, assuming there are 9 guys and 1 girl, does the girl die 10% of the time? More? Less? The simple statement that 'there are more deaths when a girl is present' could be because the girls are the ones getting killed by the avalanche. Not saying that's the case, just pointing out your statement seemed to assume it's NOT the case. You're right, my mistake. Gotcha.
  - rosser 17y ago