4 ms·

An analysis of deaths in U.S. national parks

16 points by Zigurd 4y ago

ghaff 4y ago
I assume that North Cascades is influenced by the fact that it's not visited a huge amount but that there are a fair number of non-trivial peaks in the park that people climb. A bit surprising it's such an outlier but presumably the intersection of accessibility and challenging. There are probably other examples that are not national parks.
- carabiner 4y ago
  It is some of the most spectacular terrain I've seen in the world. But you have to put in some work to get to it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Octokiddie 4y ago
8 deaths due to "Wildlife/Animal" vs 17 deaths due to "Homicide." In other words, you're twice as likely to be killed by your own species as another. But that pales in comparison to other categories such as "Natural Death" (285), "Motor Vehicle Crash" (475), and Drowning (668).
farnsworth 4y ago
Looks like North Cascades' huge lead (in deaths per visitor) is sort of a statistical anomaly due to having pretty low total visits and no buffer of a large number of safe casual visitors. Searching around, can't find any other details on deaths except this article https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-found-sobbing-naked-after-wife-dies-from-fall/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-found-sobbing-... But North Cascades is an overlooked national park and I recommend a visit if you get the chance. It doesn't help that Mt Rainier and Olympic are also close to Seattle.
dang 4y ago
Related ongoing thread: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34309977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34309977 - Jan 2023 (284 comments)
atourgates 4y ago
Ok - so it's worth remembering that this was created[1] by a "content marketing agency" on behalf of a law firm. AKA, this is an ad. That said, the North Cascades data is wild, suggesting that you're 6x more likely to die on a visit to that National Park than any other. It is a rugged and remote landscape, but 6x more dangerous makes me suspect the accuracy of the underlying data. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/12/02/travel-alert-the-national-park-where-youre-most-likely-to-die/?sh=70000f165c9c https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/12/02/tra...
- tshaddox 4y ago
  I’m guessing it’s a combination of extremely small sample size and the North Cascades being disproportionately used for dangerous activities like rock climbing and mountaineering.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  One of the most interesting ads I've come across!
- Zigurd 4y ago
  True that it is on a site promoting a law firm. But, I don't see a reason to doubt this is an aggregation and visualization of Park Service data. I have some gripes about per capita deaths in some visualization and absolute numbers in others, etc. I do not see tendentiousness, though. There is no "See! They are negligent!" here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
aaron695 4y ago
[dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

16 points by Zigurd 4y ago

I assume that North Cascades is influenced by the fact that it's not visited a huge amount but that there are a fair number of non-trivial peaks in the park that people climb. A bit surprising it's such an outlier but presumably the intersection of accessibility and challenging. There are probably other examples that are not national parks.

carabiner 4y ago
It is some of the most spectacular terrain I've seen in the world. But you have to put in some work to get to it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Octokiddie 4y ago

8 deaths due to "Wildlife/Animal" vs 17 deaths due to "Homicide." In other words, you're twice as likely to be killed by your own species as another. But that pales in comparison to other categories such as "Natural Death" (285), "Motor Vehicle Crash" (475), and Drowning (668).

farnsworth 4y ago

Looks like North Cascades' huge lead (in deaths per visitor) is sort of a statistical anomaly due to having pretty low total visits and no buffer of a large number of safe casual visitors. Searching around, can't find any other details on deaths except this article https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-found-sobbing-naked-after-wife-dies-from-fall/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/man-found-sobbing-... But North Cascades is an overlooked national park and I recommend a visit if you get the chance. It doesn't help that Mt Rainier and Olympic are also close to Seattle.

dang 4y ago

Related ongoing thread: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34309977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34309977 - Jan 2023 (284 comments)

atourgates 4y ago

Ok - so it's worth remembering that this was created[1] by a "content marketing agency" on behalf of a law firm. AKA, this is an ad. That said, the North Cascades data is wild, suggesting that you're 6x more likely to die on a visit to that National Park than any other. It is a rugged and remote landscape, but 6x more dangerous makes me suspect the accuracy of the underlying data. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/12/02/travel-alert-the-national-park-where-youre-most-likely-to-die/?sh=70000f165c9c https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2020/12/02/tra...

tshaddox 4y ago
I’m guessing it’s a combination of extremely small sample size and the North Cascades being disproportionately used for dangerous activities like rock climbing and mountaineering.
readthenotes1 4y ago
One of the most interesting ads I've come across!
Zigurd 4y ago
True that it is on a site promoting a law firm. But, I don't see a reason to doubt this is an aggregation and visualization of Park Service data. I have some gripes about per capita deaths in some visualization and absolute numbers in others, etc. I do not see tendentiousness, though. There is no "See! They are negligent!" here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

aaron695 4y ago

[dead]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]