In-depth series on skier deaths in Colorado

[James]

Vermont's Mad River Glen -- land of virtually no snowmaking, hardly any grooming, narrow, winding, old-school New England trails -- has never had a skier fatality.

I think there are a lot of factors that go into that statistic -- it tends to attract a more experienced skier who is more aware of the potential dangers, the ancient lifts prevent slope overcrowding,etc. -- but the very nature of their terrain prevents the "go stupidly fast" mentality as well.

Well lots of moguls, lack of high speed cruisers. I suspect most people killed by trees, at least in the east, are not "skiing trees". Thay are skiing groomers and lose control. Some of the most dangerous days are when there's large glare ice patches after edgeable packed snow.

Winter deaths in Chamonix Valley areas are probably around 30 per year. They just banned wing suits last October after 6 deaths, one after hitting a chalet in town.

 

[Tricia]

I'm interested to see where they go with this series.

 

[SkiNurse]

Until very recently, when a skier's death has been reported in the Colorado media, it has only been those that have died at the resort/clinic. In the last two week, the local news outlets, have actually reported on deaths that have occurred, because of skiing, days later in the hospital. This is usually what has always been under-reported, People succumb to their injuries days, weeks, months, years later and I don't think that these numbers are counted.

 

[Eleeski]

I'm interested to see where they go with this series.

In some ways, I'm not. I'm not sure anything good for the sport can come out of it. Accidents will happen in a risky sport. Highlighting deaths will sell sensationalist copy. Lawyers will soak the resorts. Resorts will be forced to respond - like by closing the tree runs. Participants will avoid the "dangerous" ski trip and die of obesity from playing video games instead. I worry that it's already happening.

Eric

 

[Monique]

My ACL recovery has me re-evaluating risk/reward for the activities in my life.

I plan to keep pushing my personal envelope wrt skiing - continue to ski steeps with rock bands, trees, etc. The reward I gain from it is worth what I consider to be a pretty small risk. I'm grateful to the resorts for giving me the opportunity to do these things while providing avy mitigation and rescue services. I remember a ski patroller on the east coast, almost 20 years ago, yelling at me for skiing in a melting, empty half pipe. Snowboarders only! I don't know how much of that was east coast (No Jumping! Anywhere!), and how much was the time.

I'm selling my motorcycle - I realized that it's not all that compelling to me and that it was more about ego than enjoyment. Also, good motorcycle days conflict with good mountain biking days.

Ski resorts really push the family-friendly aspects. It's good, I think, for visitors to actually think about the danger in what they're doing. I don't know how it's not obvious that skiing into a tree at 30mph is dangerous, but I think people do get lulled by the amusement park atmosphere and all of the uniforms, signs, etc.

 

[Don in Morrison]

In some ways, I'm not. I'm not sure anything good for the sport can come out of it. Accidents will happen in a risky sport. Highlighting deaths will sell sensationalist copy. Lawyers will soak the resorts. Resorts will be forced to respond - like by closing the tree runs. Participants will avoid the "dangerous" ski trip and die of obesity from playing video games instead. I worry that it's already happening.

Eric

I think they're trying to make people afraid of skiing at certain places by hyping their high fatality rates, like the trees are gonna jump out and swat you.

 

[Monique]

I think they're trying to make people afraid of skiing at certain places by hyping their high fatality rates, like the trees are gonna jump out and swat you.

Yeah, I really felt like there was a weirdly anti-VR tone to the start of the article, even though the "below the fold" parts then made things look different.

Hey, if people want to avoid Breck because of its supposedly high fatality rates, I am a-ok with that!

 

[Nancy Hummel]

People used to call Keystone -Tombstone.
There are many new skiers from all over who ski at Breck. Blue groomers are great but it is all too easy to get going very fast without the ability to stop or turn. I am not sure if the new skier family fully knows and appreciates the risk of uncontrolled speed. It is a problem and I believe the resorts have an obligation to help increase the awareness. However, by taking action, the resort can increase its liability by undertaking duties it is not required to do. Catch 22.

 

[Don in Morrison]

Some runs are groomed with a high embankment on one side, 4-6 feet high sometimes, like they're trying to even out a double fall line by piling the snow up. I've always thought that if anyone slips off that edge at even a moderate speed, they're gonna bite a tree, hard, because there's no escape once you start down that embankment, unless you're really, really good. I'd be curious to know how those embankments factor into the tree-impact data.

If the snow on the run is more or less level with the snow in the trees, if one loses it near the edge of the trail, at least there's a fighting chance of avoiding a tree crash, but if one loses it at the edge of an embankment, it's almost a guaranteed quick trip to catastrophe.

 

[Eleeski]

One of the best runs at Squaw is in the dropoff between the groomed flats and the trees on Red Dog. It gets nice bumps on an otherwise miserably groomed run. Do we have to get that roped off to keep the "investigative" reporters happy?

Risk is something that the individuals manage. Some people manage risk badly regardless of the safety protocols in place. Leaving some freedom to use your own judgment will be bad for those people. So take away freedom to protect idiots?

Eric

 

[Andy Mink]

I'm not sure what the first article was getting at. That some areas are more dangerous? Or just have more fatal accidents. Are they upset because the info on what happened is thin? There are so many variables that go into any given accident at any given time at any given resort that it would be hard to point a finger at one thing. I'm not so sure why the article is saying info is hard to get. In the Tahoe area it's usually in the news with age, sex, and name when someone dies at an area.

The part about "if the parents of the 20 something only knew" is really off base. For all we know he could have died at any other ski area on the same day. The whole article smacks of someone without something better to do but write open ended questions.

 

[James]

Yeah but more people were killed on the lifts at Granby Ranch this year than Aspen's lifts.(Guess)

 

[cantunamunch]

. And Deer Valley, groomer heaven, scares the crap out of me. (Sorry, @Lorenzzo ) Too many skiers with marginal skills skiing waaaay too fast. (That emphatically does NOT include Lorenzzo) Whenever I ski there, my head is continuously swiveling.

Not saying you're wrong - I just remember a few really nice bump/tree run pods at DV

 

[Mike Thomas]

Vermont's Mad River Glen -- land of virtually no snowmaking, hardly any grooming, narrow, winding, old-school New England trails -- has never had a skier fatality.

Sure, but with MRG it's only open about 12 days per season and the single chair only allows about 25 people per day uphill... so...

 

[Guy in Shorts]

Sure, but with MRG it's only open about 12 days per season and the single chair only allows about 25 people per day uphill... so...

It is awesome for those few special days days of the season with limited up hill capacity. And the downside...is..

 

[cantunamunch]

I'd love to know if the insurance companies writing policies for Euro visitors have better numbers than the public ones.

 

[Ken_R]

Sure, but with MRG it's only open about 12 days per season and the single chair only allows about 25 people per day uphill... so...

jajaja Funny... because its somewhat true

 

[cosmoliu]

Not saying you're wrong - I just remember a few really nice bump/tree run pods at DV

There for sure are some great bumps at DV, like Rattler. Its the groomers that scare me.

 

[Jed Peters]

Yup.
And the discussion about tree deaths is interesting. Most cases of tree collisions seem to be people on groomers, losing control and hitting a tree off to the side.
@Jed Peters is alive to tell his story, but I'd venture a guess that he wouldn't suffered the break he has if he'd actually been tree skiing.

I'd be bruised, but NO WAY I'd be in the situation I'd be in if I was tree skiing. NO WAY.

And @Tricia had I hit anywhere on my body a foot higher, I'd be dead.

 

[Karen_skier2.0]

"To find out where the unknown skier died, the recent statistics suggest beginning the search with Breckenridge Ski Resort. With nearly 1.7 million annual visits, the nation's busiest ski area accounts for five of the state's 13 ski-related fatalities so far this season — the most in a single winter at the resort."

While Breckenridge may have had 38% (5/13) of the ski-related fatalities, 5 deaths in 1.7 million annual visits averages to 1 death per 340,000 annual visits. I'm not sure if "annual visits" actually refers to single or multiple days. The annual statistics for every ski area are not provided for all the areas yet they are asserting that Breck is somehow "more deadly" than the others.

Personally, I really don't look at the numbers or spike in the numbers of deaths since they provide an incomplete picture without also assessing serious life-altering injuries like brain trauma and spinal cord injuries. There is little, if any, reliable data kept for the life-altering injuries and, for that reason, I don't think people should be focusing solely on the number of deaths on the slopes unless they can translate this into the potential for life-altering injuries. For example, for every death there may X number of life-altering injuries that go unreported. Is this 5 or 10? This is like only focusing on the number of people killed during war, but not all the ones that come home permanently disabled.

Skiing is a contact sport. At a minimum, everyone will have a hard fall and contact the ground. The potential for contacting an immovable (tree, lift tower) or movable (person, snowmobile) object is always there. But a lot of this comes down to mitigation of risk, knowing your limits, and dumb luck. For every person that hits a tree (or tower or person), there are many that missed it by inches. (Personal observation: Picking pine boughs out of your brakes and ski buckles makes your realize how close you actually came to that tree trunk!

A note in regards to the "safety" of moguls: Although this was during a competition, I remember when 3 people--including myself--were carted off a rock solid, blue ice, mogul course complete with ambulance trips to the hospital. Two of us sustained concussions from whacking our heads on the backside of ice blue, east coast moguls. (This was in the 80s pre-helmets, but I doubt it would have made a difference.) The other bruised her spleen.

As a side note, in Colorado, annually (2015) there were are 10 deaths per 100,000 population and 1.08 Deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. I wonder how many people die during their travels to and from ski areas each year. Which is riskier?