Statistic Question - Most riskiest Place To Hike

[steveh72]

Hi Blacksheep

Yes I guess the Darwin theory is very much alive and well


Hi Strider & co re my spelling in the post's title - yes the word riskiest does exist - seriously

risk·y (rsk)
adj. risk·i·er, risk·i·est
Accompanied by or involving risk or danger; hazardous:

Cheers

Steve

[north-north-west]

Err, the question was about the grammar, not the spelling. 'Riskiest' is fine on its own, adding the 'most' is unnecessary, despite that famous Shakespearean line..

[steveh72]

hi NNW
I will gracefully eat humble pie

Duly noted and yes upon reflection yes the grammar is poor.

Cheers

Steve

[Ent]

In the absence of any statistical data it is impossible to argue any point on safety. My primary concern is Parks approach to management, with infrastructure management being the key area. Having just completed the OLT I encountered so many different types of boardwalk design that the only logical conclusion is Parks does not have a clue. The key to asset management is building infrastructure that you can maintain and replace within given financial constraints. Critical to this is building infrastructure with the lowest life cycle cost so long term life is balanced against capital and maintenance cost to arrive a the magical number that gives the best bang for buck. Nowadays we also factor in avoidable risk costs.

Ok lets take the section from New Pelion to Windemere. Here you will find the old style cording with broken wires forming a trip hazard and slashing the legs of people not wearing gaiters. I accept that this is a historical construction method but simple maintenance would quickly remove most of the issues. Then you have timber board walk of all configuration with boards running parallel and perpendicular to direction of travel, some with gaps and others without, some with chicken wire and some without. Even the staples are different as some have rounded staples and others with square staples. Of the many falls with our group the vast majority were on boardwalks not on "natural" track or even tree roots. Oh, in case people wish to make some comments about it just being me ranting, for the record I completed the trip upright with only one half slip, yes it was on Parks slimy board walk. Walking poles are wonderful things on open tracks.

Now what percentage of "rescues" are due to falls on Parks boardwalks? Sorry we have no answer. Now in private enterprise a company bears the cost of injury to its customers but Parks does not as rescues are funded from another pile of money so there is no incentive to apply sensible risk mitigation management processes. All care and no responsibility is the rule that enables Parks not to consider the safety of their infrastructure.

The best way to lower asset cost is standardized design and construction method. Parks is all over the shop. Some boards are chamfered at their ends while others are not. What is best? Is parallel boards better than perpendicular ones? What is the best gap to use between boards? Is chicken wire better at avoiding falls than raw boards. Is the tar coated boards around the Cirque out of Waterfall Valley the best surface for avoiding slips and preserving board life? Do the straight staple cut the chicken wire more than rounded staples? It is clear that Parks has not a clue.

Now a few detractors to the above will claim that I am asking for a Nanny state. No I am not. Bushwalking by its nature requires vigilance but surely simple things can be done to reduce falls. In fact I much prefer off track walking over trudging gingerly over slimy boards. Hang on, lets look at boardwalk dodging. Yeap, where there is good boardwalk very little track abrading happens but where there is slimy boards people vote with their feet and walk beside it so why have that type of boardwalk?

A classic example of Parks' indifference to basic safety is the track markers on metal stakes. A lot are straight triangles that will slash any skin. Congratulations Parks some have the edges rounded over. But even this simple navigation guide shows Parks lack of asset management systems. You have a galvanized stake with a rust resistant triangle bolted on with a gutter bolt not protected so almost rusted through.

Under State mandated law buildings opened to the public must be maintained. A nightmare for historical buildings so I forgive Parks for dealing with the likes of Du Cane hut but what about the Bert Nichols masterpiece of extravagant spending? Yeap, a pleasant night (or was it day, hard to tell due to the poor natural lighting of the building) with the smoke detector battery going flat so the alarm beeped constantly. What does Tas Fire Service tell us when daylight savings happens, yes change the battery on your smoke detector. Parks does not do this by the sounds of this. So some idiot never seeing a coal heater creates a fire and people die unnecessary due to the smoke detector not working. I can just see Parks madly ripping out heaters in response.

I would dearly love to see the cost of rescues and an examination on what the risk mitigation costs would be. Yes I expect for many you can not economically control the risk but for many you can. What I see with Parks' asset management is adhoc design and construction. This cost money, and yes Parks like the vast majority of organization has tight budgets so can ill afford the past and possibly current poor asset and risk management practices.

Simply apply commercial safety demands and penalties to Parks and the bureaucrats responsible for such shoddy practices will quickly go the way of the dodo and competent managers will come forward. This can only be a good thing but in the absence of information and examination this sadly will not happen.

Regards

Last edited by Ent on Tue 11 Jun, 2013 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Strider]

Hi Strider & co re my spelling in the post's title - yes the word riskiest does exist - seriously

risk·y (rsk)
adj. risk·i·er, risk·i·est
Accompanied by or involving risk or danger; hazardous:

Cheers

Steve

Yes but the word "most" cancels out the adjective. The correct term is either "most risky" or just plain "riskiest".

[doogs]

Hi Strider & co re my spelling in the post's title - yes the word riskiest does exist - seriously

risk·y (rsk)
adj. risk·i·er, risk·i·est
Accompanied by or involving risk or danger; hazardous:

Cheers

Steve

Yes but the word "most" cancels out the adjective. The correct term is either "most risky" or just plain "riskiest".

I prefer to take a different view to the grammar police and think an 'i' is missing for the word 'most'. We are in the Tasmanian section of the forum after all!!

[Skinky]

The thing about common sense is that common sense ain't that common

[GPSGuided]

I would suggest that some of the most risky places in terms of number of injuries are those easy access tourist treks. There's no shortage of twisted ankles, broken bones, falling off a large rock or cliff face. Whilst numerically they are the most risky, they are not the most riskiest by other standards. I'd think that alternate standard would simply correlate with the technical difficulty of the track/activity.

[andrewbish]

"Most riskiest"? Seriously?

Read more. You'll need a whole packet of red pencils . . .

Shaym on yous. Everybodies got there strenths and weekness's I dont think we shood pic on peeples grammer or speling. At leest its reedable unlik sum peeples posts hear. (No offence intended to anyone )

Good pick up, Strider. Really annoying when people get confused on this point. Every proud graduate of Australia's world class education system knows it should be "Mostest riskiest"

That is all.

[north-north-west]

Ok lets take the section from New Pelion to Windemere. Here you will find the old style cording with broken wires forming a trip hazard and slashing the legs of people not wearing gaiters. I accept that this is a historical construction method but simple maintenance would quickly remove most of the issues. Then you have timber board walk of all configuration with boards running parallel and perpendicular to direction of travel, some with gaps and others without, some with chicken wire and some without. Even the staples are different as some have rounded staples and others with square staples. Of the many falls with our group the vast majority were on boardwalks not on "natural" track or even tree roots. Oh, in case people wish to make some comments about it just being me ranting, for the record I completed the trip upright with only one half slip, yes it was on Parks slimy board walk. Walking poles are wonderful things on open tracks.

Now what percentage of "rescues" are due to falls on Parks boardwalks? Sorry we have no answer. Now in private enterprise a company bears the cost of injury to its customers but Parks does not as rescues are funded from another pile of money so there is no incentive to apply sensible risk mitigation management processes. All care and no responsibility is the rule that enables Parks not to consider the safety of their infrastructure.

The best way to lower asset cost is standardized design and construction method. Parks is all over the shop. Some boards are chamfered at their ends while others are not. What is best? Is parallel boards better than perpendicular ones? What is the best gap to use between boards? Is chicken wire better at avoiding falls than raw boards. Is the tar coated boards around the Cirque out of Waterfall Valley the best surface for avoiding slips and preserving board life? Do the straight staple cut the chicken wire more than rounded staples? It is clear that Parks has not a clue.

If anyone has difficulty finding a clue on this subject, it would be you.
To begin with, you're talking about track infrastructure that has been installed anywhere between 50 years and a few months ago. Construction methods change, materials change, requirements change, knowledge and understanding of best practice increases, budgets constraints apply (always). The staples, most likely, vary simply due to whether to workers had a staple gun (square) or had to attach the wire by hand with hammers (rounded).

Talk to someone who has actually had to deal with trying to organise track maintenance. It's not just a matter of grabbing a hammer and pair of pliers and wandering out there to see what needs to be done. Last sentence edited by moderator.

[icefest]

Purely by statistics the most dangerous places to go hiking would be hospitals.

Failing that, how many thousands of people do day walks in Australia without a single incident?

Statistically speaking obesity is much more likely to kill you than bushwalking.

[Scottyk]

Ok lets take the section from New Pelion to Windemere. Here you will find the old style cording with broken wires forming a trip hazard and slashing the legs of people not wearing gaiters. I accept that this is a historical construction method but simple maintenance would quickly remove most of the issues. Then you have timber board walk of all configuration with boards running parallel and perpendicular to direction of travel, some with gaps and others without, some with chicken wire and some without. Even the staples are different as some have rounded staples and others with square staples. Of the many falls with our group the vast majority were on boardwalks not on "natural" track or even tree roots. Oh, in case people wish to make some comments about it just being me ranting, for the record I completed the trip upright with only one half slip, yes it was on Parks slimy board walk. Walking poles are wonderful things on open tracks.

Now what percentage of "rescues" are due to falls on Parks boardwalks? Sorry we have no answer. Now in private enterprise a company bears the cost of injury to its customers but Parks does not as rescues are funded from another pile of money so there is no incentive to apply sensible risk mitigation management processes. All care and no responsibility is the rule that enables Parks not to consider the safety of their infrastructure.

The best way to lower asset cost is standardized design and construction method. Parks is all over the shop. Some boards are chamfered at their ends while others are not. What is best? Is parallel boards better than perpendicular ones? What is the best gap to use between boards? Is chicken wire better at avoiding falls than raw boards. Is the tar coated boards around the Cirque out of Waterfall Valley the best surface for avoiding slips and preserving board life? Do the straight staple cut the chicken wire more than rounded staples? It is clear that Parks has not a clue.

If anyone has difficulty finding a clue on this subject, it would be you.
To begin with, you're talking about track infrastructure that has been installed anywhere between 50 years and a few months ago. Construction methods change, materials change, requirements change, knowledge and understanding of best practice increases, budgets constraints apply (always). The staples, most likely, vary simply due to whether to workers had a staple gun (square) or had to attach the wire by hand with hammers (rounded).

Talk to someone who has actually had to deal with trying to organise track maintenance. It's not just a matter of grabbing a hammer and pair of pliers and wandering out there to see what needs to be done.

Last sentence edited by moderator

+1

[corvus]

Self delete

Last edited by corvus on Mon 23 Sep, 2013 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Nuts]

Talk to someone who has actually had to deal with trying to organise track maintenance. It's not just a matter of grabbing a hammer and pair of pliers and wandering out there to see what needs to be done

Welll.. While I agree the funding might favour the most visible issues and in 'projects' the area mentioned Pelion-Windermere and many formed tracks rely on just that- someone grabbing a hammer and pliers (shovel, mattock, chainsaw and pruners) and wandering along seeing what needs to be done. I did it just that way and on that section for four summers. Cord wire needs trimming, drains need clearing, the bauera needs pruning along the side of P West. As these are reliant on separate or recurrent funding (not sure how much of it track rangers are 'allowed' to do these days) it will never be enough for this important work.

While there are definitely risks, and they are very much evident in track conditions on a busy track I too find it hard to see as a comparative 'big deal' under this topic. That section may have claimed a fair share of injuries from trips and falls but 'most riskiest'??

Please stick to the subject and avoid derogatory personal observations.

[Ent]

Glad I missed the moderation. I am sure some have a romantic view that been in Parks is a matter of enjoying the wilderness and checking out the fit young bodies but the simple fact is Parks is an asset manager. Successful asset management is developing standardize means of implementing and maintaining assets. My post points out that this is not the case.

Unlike a some I have extensive experience in asset management so look at the detail of works to see what various organizations do regarding asset management. I am firmly of the opinion that asset management is best done by people qualified such as engineers and tradespeople.

A classic example of creative use of technology is a system of reporting implemented by councils called SnapSolve where issues are reported by the public using mobile devices. Parks does not appear to have any reporting systems.

Under Work Safe businesses must keep systems to monitor incidents with the purpose to reduce them. It appears as an outsider that Parks has no interest in what causes a rescue so I wonder how they can implement a risk management system. All I see is increasing number of warning signs that state the obvious.

I have seen some on this forum take great delight in been critical of the people been rescued but I am more interested in why. I tend to think many rescues are due to damaged caused by slippery walking surfaces. But no information exists to confirm or repute this belief.

Unqualified romantics with firm opinions on their superiority to "normal" people to avoid rescue make poor commentators on what should be a straightforward task of implementing and maintaining infrastructure and more importantly reporting when insufficient funding exists. "I did my best" is rather considered by Worksafe as the old line "I was only following orders".

I wonder if anyone has plotted Parks' budget in the growth of lands and assets coming under its control. I have looked around and can find no statistic to answer the original poster's question. This alone highlights the culture of secrecy that is Parks.

[Nuts]

Let's be clear, nothing at all wrong with pointing out issues in parks. Not here on the forum, not around most parkies iv'e met.

The resulting discussions only start to smell when the issues home in on the person responsible. Accusing individuals isn't going to end well on here i'd expect but given that there isn't accountability in any real world sense if the issues do by inference point the finger then tough... (imo) Seems to me that the environment in general would be so much better served by some honesty. Even if we can't expect any more from green politics than familiar herd bs political high browing doesn't have to apply equally to the 'real' world issues. Sidelining the green 'condition' in favour of the environment can't happen soon enough.... (imo)

Anyhow, where was I? Oh, yes .. by the same equally important token- credit where it is due.
I had the same sinking confounded feeling reading your post ENT as i do in my accountants office sorry, kis for me!

I'd say that the local ranger responsible for that section of track (immediate asset manager?) would have a better idea than anyone just what needs to be done there. No really- i'd expect he could discuss any given short section, remedial actions and their cost. Not sure how well incident reporting works as a process these days (communication between rescue and parks, it did seem a bit fickle) but i'd also expect he would know as well as anyone what the hazards are or have been.

How does recounting the beans do anything other than give someone else work, take money even further away from where it's actually getting things done. Money that i'd expect anyone involved could have spent yesterday? (not to take anything from bean counting as a profession.. just in this given example)

Getting back to 'most riskiest' I still don't see any walking track in this category... watch yer feet try walking that section off-track, i'm sure the hazards would stack up. Perhaps it is a wise move to Not acknowledge walking tracks (in any state of repair) as a 'hazard'?

Overall, given that the hazards are obvious but the funding isn't what sort of quandary does that present to the asset managers. Surely (in a litigious world), unfortunately, it's not a good idea to go around reporting hazards that they don't have any immediate funding to fix?

[greyim]

Ouch! Ouch!! & ouch!!! Chill pill
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15011
Apples with apples, councils have a duty of care and captive rate base to help pay for it! Businesses pass on the costs and/or go broke!
Parks on the other hand, asset rich? alas funds poor....
Compare the cost of a hikers swing bridge to, say the new foot bridge at Bells Parade, the paperwork alone probably topped the swing bridge.( It's a nice bridge )
Anyway, on the plus side, the variety of 'tracks' is attractive, uniformity is a bore.
And if parks have to start grinding the cracks smooth on tracks like street footpaths ...
Problem is increasingly people expect to sue for every fault, place may as well be called America not Australia. Not hard to find examples...
Perhaps better approach might be some sort of entry fee/ insurance cover like sports clubs have, included in parks pass!

[Lophophaps]

Figures need to be normalised. For example, medical risks may be deaths per million cases, industrial accidents may be deaths per million at risk, travel may be deaths per billion kilometres travelled, and sports may be deaths per million participant hours.

For bushwalking, a suitable metric appears to be deaths per millions of visitor hours. But this is tricky: should time when in camp be excluded? There may be a flash flood at night or a tree may fall onto a tent in a storm. I’ve seen but not participated in both.

And how are these figures to be calculated? Quite a lot of walkers do not complete log books, if available, and figures on tourists can be even harder to determine. Then good health must be offset against some adverse incidents, to hopefully give an overall good score.

On a lighter note I have details of an insurance policy that covers “abseiling (with ropes).” Ropes when abseiling are a splendid idea.

[Scottyk]

Glad I missed the moderation. I am sure some have a romantic view that been in Parks is a matter of enjoying the wilderness and checking out the fit young bodies but the simple fact is Parks is an asset manager. Successful asset management is developing standardize means of implementing and maintaining assets. My post points out that this is not the case.

Unlike a some I have extensive experience in asset management so look at the detail of works to see what various organizations do regarding asset management. I am firmly of the opinion that asset management is best done by people qualified such as engineers and tradespeople.

A classic example of creative use of technology is a system of reporting implemented by councils called SnapSolve where issues are reported by the public using mobile devices. Parks does not appear to have any reporting systems.

Under Work Safe businesses must keep systems to monitor incidents with the purpose to reduce them. It appears as an outsider that Parks has no interest in what causes a rescue so I wonder how they can implement a risk management system. All I see is increasing number of warning signs that state the obvious.

I have seen some on this forum take great delight in been critical of the people been rescued but I am more interested in why. I tend to think many rescues are due to damaged caused by slippery walking surfaces. But no information exists to confirm or repute this belief.

Unqualified romantics with firm opinions on their superiority to "normal" people to avoid rescue make poor commentators on what should be a straightforward task of implementing and maintaining infrastructure and more importantly reporting when insufficient funding exists. "I did my best" is rather considered by Worksafe as the old line "I was only following orders".

I wonder if anyone has plotted Parks' budget in the growth of lands and assets coming under its control. I have looked around and can find no statistic to answer the original poster's question. This alone highlights the culture of secrecy that is Parks.

I think we forget that Parks aren't there to build tracks for walkers so that they can avoid hurting themselves out in the wilderness.
The fact is that people want to see these areas so they walk in. In some areas lost of people walk in (OLT, WOJ etc.). Parks have a role to manage the impact that these people have, this is why they build tent platforms, put boardwalks over bogs, placed steps in erosion areas etc etc. They are there to minimise the impact we have not make the place safe for us.

The risks for your safety are entirely your own in my opinion. Do we really want to see a situation where if board walk exceeds 1m high it needs a hand rail??? Or if a board walk is slippery....... where does it end

[Scottyk]

Further to my last this is the summary of the overall objectives of the World Heritage Area Management Plan, 1999. Of which OLT, WOJ etc come under

To identify, protect, conserve, present and, where appropriate,
rehabilitate the world heritage and other natural and cultural values of
the WHA, and to transmit that heritage to future generations in
as good or better condition than at present

end quote

Doesn't mention making walking safe although it does have sections in it relating to managing risks to visitors. I think the plan would inform the debate anyway.

See this link for the plan
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=6364

[Mountain Rocket]

It would undoubtedly have to be the OLT simply based on the volume of people who use that track every year??

[Nuts]

Scotty (in the case of the OLT... perhaps spreading..) there's also a fee for a service being charged for the track. With it come expectations, most likely legal implications? I can imagine that this complicates funding and responsibilities.

The section ENT mentions still needs work! Erosion needs control, drains need clearing. (the side of P West is the worst route for a formed foot track. The soils are just too shallow for a track without hardening/stabilizing). All those parallel saplings down towards Frog Flats need ripping out, maintenance needs to happen. Work has gradually fixed many sections through there, this tends to only make the 'bad' sections seem worse for one-off or occasional visitors. But really, if work hasn't happened then there is most likely a funding shortfall. 'Why' is a different kettle of fish.

[Happy Pirate]

I vote Australian Antarctic Territory

Sydney

[wayno]

in nz, DOC got a massive shakeup with the cave creek tragedy in 1995
14 people died when a doc built viewing platform collapsed...
it transpired the platform wasnt designed by a qualified engineer, and was built by doc staff unqualified in building or supervising the construction.
hte plans werent followed, the ptform wasnt anchored properly to the foundations, leading to teh collapse.
The platform was not listed in any register that would have resulted in regular inspections.
after the tragedy DoC set about professionally doing structural and safety auditing of every single known structure, ncluding bridges, thoughout the country, every single one was issued a number and classified according to its level of safety. mimimum standards were drawn up for every type of structure.
any structure that wasnt up to the required structural or safety standard was either designated for replacement or planned work to bring it up to standard by qualified professionals. or it was designated for demolition,,, it was a pretty contentious audit....
there were cases of relatively safe bridges that were the only safe ways of crossing rivers in flood that were demolished because they were designated for demolition because doc didnt want to upgrade or replace them... in at least one case the cable bridge still dangles uselessly on one side of a near impassable river...
doc had to do an about face on ripping out numerous huts after it was argued they were causing bigger safety issues by demolishing structures that werent that inherently unsafe and were a safer alternative than not having them there at all...
they removed the dingy on dusky sound for health and safety reasons.... so they wouldnt have to worry about someone drowning themselves in the dingy.... in the end cave creek cast a very long shadow.
i'm not sure if cave creek was responsible for a popular easy rock climb in the coromandel being covered in steps, ladders and staples all the way to the top, but it may well have been.
if nothing else, you know now that any doc structure you cross is highly likely to be built to a high safety standard, and relatively unlikely to contribute to an accident...
Gone is the day when you'll come across an old swing bridge or wire with a sign stating the bridge is unsafe and you use it at your own risk

[Happy Pirate]

Having just read the new river to fed peak failed trip thread (what an epic read), A question sprang to mind,

Is there stats to compare hiking deaths between different areas of Australia. One comment in the thread was "just another dumb Victorian I assume".

Having lived in the Snowy Mountains, the main range and western slopes can be very nasty places with extreme weather all year round and numerous deaths over the years have occured (albeit lost skiers by enlarge) and no doubt the desert can be just as dangerous.

The western slopes of the Snowys basically rise some 1600 meters (400m at Corryong to over 2000 meters at the main range with several valleys in between)

I do read quite often that mainlanders have no understanding of Tasmanian conditions when those who have walked the main range for instance would say that this part of the world is actually very similar to Tasmanian alpine conditions & perhaps a little harsher due to altitude .

I would say that the desert would probably be IMHO be the most dangerous place followed by any high altitude area.
Just curious ?????

OHHH BOYYYY.......
from one Steve H to another... Mate I hope you like your can of worms half-baked!!!

Seriously, what do you mean "the riskiest place"?
You say you want stats but unfortunately this is such a loaded question all you are going to get is anecdotes, opinions and single-issue news reports.
And using numbers alone without any sensible context is always a dangerous exercise regardless.

How do you define "riskiest"?
By fatalities only? Then distance from emergency service access will offset the pure physical difficulty of the region.
Do you want the area with the greatest amount of stupid, unprepared hikers (near urban), the most challenging areas (see above), the area with the most unexpected natural disasters, popular suicide areas or something else....? Are you excluding 'urban' areas with the same activities?
Do you include deaths only caused by navigation failure (disappearance) and physical injury or include snakebite, hypothermia, muggings, unrelated medical emergencies (including diabetic shock - likely to be more common in safer, popular trails), delayed-response fatalities (those that die at home later inc. infection and parasites) and a myriad of other trivial possible dangers?

And then you want to compare Tassie to "the desert"?? Which? How??
How do you delineate the desert?
Is it possible to separate desert walking deaths from 4WD deaths? Day walkers from trekkers?

In 2006 alone, 254 people were killed crossing the road in Australia
(http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/0/D18CA4EA930FF0D2CA25773700169CE5?opendocument)
(Beyond that, figures and stats are hard to come by)

Sorry to get all rigorous on yo' A$$, but these supposedly simple questions are the same ones posed continually on every subject without reflection or shame by the mainstream media to distort reality towards a simplistic representation as an excuse for rigorous journalism.

But hey!
It's a great thread for an excuse to dump a local real-life horror tale or relate a scary story and declare your chosen area the most dangerous.
Just don't talk about all those boring mundane deaths every day of pedestrians, car drivers or urban injury.

cheery thoughts always
(Wilderness ain't all that bad really)

Steve H

PS I still say Sydney

[north-north-west]

I think we forget that Parks aren't there to build tracks for walkers so that they can avoid hurting themselves out in the wilderness.
The fact is that people want to see these areas so they walk in. In some areas lost of people walk in (OLT, WOJ etc.). Parks have a role to manage the impact that these people have, this is why they build tent platforms, put boardwalks over bogs, placed steps in erosion areas etc etc. They are there to minimise the impact we have not make the place safe for us.

The risks for your safety are entirely your own in my opinion. Do we really want to see a situation where if board walk exceeds 1m high it needs a hand rail??? Or if a board walk is slippery....... where does it end

+1

(ps: 'we'?)

[Nuts]

I think the title is most excellent.

Obviously refers to risk as in 'comparable to the risk associated with remote tasmanian walks.. ie Fedders-NR'.
Otherwise, personally I run the gauntlet every time I walk the dog...

[steveh72]

Hi happy pirate

Yes I did open a can of worms

Firstly I learnt

Note to self - use a dictionary before posting

I didn't plan on asking such as "loaded" question though.

I was just laying in bed and pondered which hike would be the most "riskiest" and thought I would ask the question

I did chuckle though at the various reactions, and yes the 2:00am stroll in kings cross might just be the most "riskiest" of them all.

[Happy Pirate]

steveh72 - great question though. And a discussion well worth having. Just needs a bit more fleshing out to get anything useful out.
Such as what is risk and separating it from danger (and stupidity) - thus the 'risky' popular walks (slippery steps, no handrails) full of stupid unprepared people vs. the dangerous remote walks with a few experienced folk.

I vote Australian Antarctic Territory

Doogs - good point - if you measured visitation vs. deaths AAT would almost certainly come up trumps. Arapiles would be a good call too - they pull a body off there every year it seems; would have a fair few more visitors than AAT though.
But if you could factor in likelihood of visitation.....then I wonder how Sydney would go?

Risk = likelihood of participation / likelihood of accident
likelihood of accident = accident number /population (normalised by likelihood of participation )

Ahh stats!
Wanna buy a used Chernobyl Reactor? Proven Statistically safe! (No reactor has ever melted twice)

steve