Statistic Question - Most riskiest Place To Hike

[steveh72]

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 ?????

[doogs]

I vote Australian Antarctic Territory

[Hallu]

The thing is you can't really hike in the desert (I mean the REAL desert : you can but which modest bushwalker does ?). You won't see many hikers in the Simpson, it's 4WD country. So if we're talking about places where people usually hike (even off track), then areas such as the Red Centre aren't exactly dangerous. Once you have enough water, it's a picnic. Mostly flat, snakes no where near as dangerous as people think, extreme weather events very rare... Gorges such as Katherine, Karijini or Kalbarri should be considered more dangerous because of the risk of falling. So yeah probably the mountains in n°1, although no where near as dangerous as the Alps, the Rockies, the Andes, etc... The thing is, Australia is actually a really safe place. No big predator, and although the spiders and snakes are the most venomous in the world, bites and fatalities are very rare. So it's all about falling and extreme weather : the Grampians has the falling thing, the Aussie Alps the weather thingie, but Tassie has both, plus isolation. So unless Queensland has a nasty place in Cape York Peninsula, or people start flowing in Rudall River and Drysdale River NP to get lost, I guess places such as the Western Arthur or Fed Peak should win the crown. Of course if you're a newbie going off track in Murray-Sunset at the heart of summer you're probably going to die (a chap did recently at Hattah-Kulkyne if I remember correctly), but ordeals like this are usually undertaken by well prepared people.

[wayno]

are you talking about accidents or death vs the no of people who use an area or just total stats of injuries or deaths?
its the moderately dangerous places that are often statistically the most dangerous , you are more likely to get more people in those areas than the seriously dangerous areas... more people increases the likelihood of accidents..
i'm going to use NZ examples because i'm more familiar with them and its just to demonstrate my point, but it will be similar for various areas in aus.
somewhere like cascade saddle in nz, has averaged a death every couple of years from falls in the last ten years and numerous serious injuries..
technically its nowhere near the most hazardous place to be in nz. but people cross it daily through a great part of the year and its dangerous enough for accidents to happen annually. the risk factor goes up and down greatly according to how wet it is or the type of snow that is there.
mt cook in nz, 60 dead, 200 dead in the park, but its a mecca for high volumes of alpine climbers of varying abilities.
depends what you mean about risk too. places with high volumes of people exercising can have a lot of medical events like heart attacks, strokes, heat related issues. the places arent that dangerous for accidents, its just the scale of the no's of people that generate the issues that arent anything to do with the geology or weather conditions. somewhere like the overland track and craddle mountain area would be a candidate
tongariro crossing in nz requires a lot of rescues every year, as much because of large no's of ill prepared people , the only really potentially dangerous thing about tongariro apart from eruption risk is its exposure to the elements.
skifields can be pretty dangerous for the volume of accidents.

[doogs]

I don't have any figures to hand but I would suspect that more people have died on the Overland Track in Tasmania than anywhere else in the state, mainly of heart attacks. But this wouldn't be the most efficient place to commit bushwalkicide in the state, that honour would probably go to Federation Peak which has only had a handful of deaths, not the huge numbers of folk visiting though.
Don't really know about the mainland, Uluru may have been when it was more popular to climb? Anywhere with a good steep track close to a large metropolitan area would be heart attack central too.

[Taurë-rana]

A number of people have died on the Kalbarri loop walk in WA - it's a tourist trail that gets very hot, very easy to underestimate.

[Hallu]

Yeah well it's the same all over Australia in summer : it's appalling to see how many casual hikers don't bring water with them. If you're not fit enough (or too lazy) to carry 3 L of water, just don't hike when it's 35+° C outside...

[Taurë-rana]

I think, like hiking in Tassie, that the main problem is ignorance rather than laziness. An 8km hike doesn't seem so far, and people don't realise how quickly they can get into trouble.

[wayno]

some people just dont realise how much sweat can evaporate off on a hot dry day.

[steveh72]

I was just pondering deaths really and Wayno make a very valid point re number of people against actual degree of difficulty

I guess ignorance can strike anywhere, I guess for the desert having enough water - sounds simple really but it is amazing how many people don't take enough. I do think fed peak & Sw tas fall IMO the desert category in that not a lot attempt it relative say the OT

So I guess OT & Uluru for unfit people taking on something they shouldn't takes the cake which is probably the issue in most cases really

Cheers

Steve

[Ent]

Hi

I too would like to see any statistical analyst of rescues especially related to total numbers of walkers and their place of origin.

I would hazard a guess to think that the person most likely needing rescue would be a newcomer to an area. I know for one I would not have a clue on water requirements in hot areas with limited water supply without doing a lot of research and still would like to do a few walks with local knowledge before attempting bigger wanders. Similar, it is near impossible to get across to some people that while it might be thirty plus getting off a plane in the morning but that night it could be minus five and blizzard conditions up in the alpine areas of Tasmania. A quick look at weather stats indicates that places like the Snowy Mountains can be more extreme but might be that the change is more gradual so less likely to catch people out or a dry cold rather than wet through weather.

I am rather critical of Parks in this area as I cannot see any targeted risk management from the land manager. Sure they do attempt to filter people on the OLT and now given that the season extends further into winter will need to be even stricter. Be nice to see a few statistical profiles of the common at risk walkers. Might be general health and simple injuries (that could happen to anyone) that drives the bulk of rescue efforts. We simply do not know. Likewise is solo walking a bad move or no more dangerous than driving to the start of the walk.

I do feel that too much debate is on media reports of specific incidents rather than facts and would like to see the government bureaucracies be more active in warning of dangers by identifying common mistakes people make. Cue the falling tree sign response from them and the endless mantra of "we do not have enough money", that they might be able to save money on the rescue side.

Cheers

[north-north-west]

I am rather critical of Parks in this area as I cannot see any targeted risk management from the land manager. Sure they do attempt to filter people on the OLT and now given that the season extends further into winter will need to be even stricter.

What are they supposed to do - have razor wire around every reserve, with a guard at the few entrances, checking people's equipment & health? You want a situation where we have to present a medical certificate and proof of experience/training before we can go for a walk?

[wayno]

how many people on this site would do a walk knowing that they may be risking a heart attack? would you give up bushwalking because there was a chance of you getting a heart attack? is anyone suggesting others should give up bushwalking for that reason and if so would you use the same logic on yourself??

[Strider]

"Most riskiest"? Seriously?

[north-north-west]

"Most riskiest"? Seriously?

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

[Skinky]

To say for sure and put numbers to it you'd have to work out an injury and fatality rate divided by say every 100 attempts or completion for a given route.

Something like this would do it; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... e_2008.png

Or just call it the overland and fedder!

[Taurë-rana]

"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 )

[Ent]

I am rather critical of Parks in this area as I cannot see any targeted risk management from the land manager. Sure they do attempt to filter people on the OLT and now given that the season extends further into winter will need to be even stricter.

What are they supposed to do - have razor wire around every reserve, with a guard at the few entrances, checking people's equipment & health? You want a situation where we have to present a medical certificate and proof of experience/training before we can go for a walk?

Either intentionally or accidentally your post encapsulates what would likely be Parks' response if they every bothered to communicate to people. If any other enterprise was to charge fee for entry to a facility and demonstrated the same lack of OH&S information and risk management the directors would likely have a lot of explaining.

Ok, lets assume another Government Department was tasked with safety of recreational users, say divers. You being older than me may well remember the yearly death toll from diving due to people rushing out buying diving gear and then killing or disabling themselves in ways that were totally avoidable with sensible training. What was the response? First acknowledge that there is a problem and then do something about it. The bureaucracy worked with the industry and instituted training course and legislative power to stop people refilling their tanks without proof of completing the course. From my memory the "accident" rate dropped dramatically. Sure you still have people that bend the rules or simply do stupid things but recreational divers suddenly had to understand the basics of diving, and part of that being you do not need to go very deep to be in deep trouble. I do not believe that the government response was irrational or over the top but given your background you can confirm my belief or explain why I am wrong.

I am simply asking that Parks' show some drive to examine each tragedy and near miss (something that us in private enterprise are at threat of goal terms need to do) and work out what, if anything, they can do. A while back the Police were so annoyed by avoidable "rescues" that they drove the joint meetings to work through the issues, or so was reported in the papers. Has Parks reported back? It would be great to know what are the real risks. It may will be the statistically significant "rescue" is the fat and forty with minor injuries rather than harping on about a comparably rare case of over ambition by the young.

I am naturally wary of the OH&S Nazis that act purely on what could go wrong rather than what is sensible risk mitigation. I am sure that the great unwashed, if hyped up by the media gods, would ban solo walking and enforce gear requirements that most could not carry, nor afford. Read what Mast has in store for kayakers! I would not want that at all, but it would be nice to know what are the common mistakes to avoid. Also what is the cost of say finding a person with a PLB versus a person without one. What areas are more likely to have problems and what type of person is likely to need rescue.

Maybe it is just too much to hope that Parks would consider education rather than curling up in a ball and not talking to anyone apart to mutter their mantra of no money. Sadly it will likely take a dramatic tragedy to drag Parks kicking and screaming into modern risk management responsibility and provide information. Sure, the terminally stupid will not read it, or follow it, but those that do will be better place to enjoy the Parks in sensible safety. The first start is some data. not assumptions or dictatorial decrees from Parks.

Regards

[Mark F]

Search costs many multiples of Rescue - thus the authorities desire for people to carry PBLs etc. The search for the many boaters who go missing (often pissed and without life jackets) makes the cost of bushwalker rescue pale into insignificance.

Please spare me from the OH&S (now WHS) nazis. I just watched several thousand dollars spent raising the height of handrails by under 100mm to satisfy them.

[wayno]

sometimes pride can be a big enough impediment to people triggering a rescue , even without factoring in worrying about being thumped thousands of dollars for a rescue...
happens all the time with boaties who dont want to admit they are lost to authorities and they delay making the call for help and its usually the end of the day and getting dark when they do call authorities who then have to search on guesswork.
you'll be surprised some of them don't even know which direction they have headed in at all.. they just roam around places like the hauraki gulf and coastline then realise they don't know how to get back to where they came from...

in NZ the maritime authority control all land and sea rescues initiated by Locator beacons, the police control other land rescues.
the maritime authoities have to deal with masses of unecessary rescues and their tolerance of them is low which was witnessed by a recent incident i commented about a gent who supposedly activated his beacon on a tramp because he was running late and they wanted to prosecute him for something like $40,000 using a law which was actually designed for people interfering with radio frequencies! his rescue cost a few thousand....
so who is going to activate a beacon if they suspect they could be hit up for $40k because they arent entirely sure the authorities would see the rescue as necesary?
i nearly got thumped for a 200km helicopter ride when i wrenched my knee, the police didnt know who requested the air force helicopter, the rescue is only covered if authorised authorities request teh helicopter.
the helicopter dropped me off in central christchurch and the police were waiting for me wanting to know who called the helicopter, thing was i didnt know myself... it was in teh days before locator beacons, by pure fluke someone was out trail running and he took the news of my accident down the line and got the rescue requested, probably talking to doc staff at the next hut judging by the speed the helicopter turned up, the police just decided it was the dept of conservation so that let me off the hook.
i wasnt financial, so the thought of forking out in this case for a genuine rescue based on a technicality wasnt a pleasant thought.

[ULWalkingPhil]

some people just dont realise how much sweat can evaporate off on a hot dry day.

Try a hot humid day and see how much you sweat.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[wayno]

yes any hot day but in low humidity you have less sweat sitting on your skin , so people dont realise how fast teh sweat is evaporating off them and that they are sweating a great deal. you're less likely to be dripping sweat in dry heat than humid heat

[north-north-west]

Ok, lets assume another Government Department was tasked with safety of recreational users, say divers. You being older than me may well remember the yearly death toll from diving due to people rushing out buying diving gear and then killing or disabling themselves in ways that were totally avoidable with sensible training. What was the response? First acknowledge that there is a problem and then do something about it. The bureaucracy worked with the industry and instituted training course and legislative power to stop people refilling their tanks without proof of completing the course. From my memory the "accident" rate dropped dramatically. Sure you still have people that bend the rules or simply do stupid things but recreational divers suddenly had to understand the basics of diving, and part of that being you do not need to go very deep to be in deep trouble. I do not believe that the government response was irrational or over the top but given your background you can confirm my belief or explain why I am wrong.

It's been a very long time since it was possible to get any sort of commercial diving service without an appropriate c-card. That includes gas fills, charter trips & equipment hire. Plus the fact you need a medical clearance to get the training, which helps sort out those who are simply not physically suited to the sport - although (unless things have changed lately) there is no requirement for the examining doctor to understand the principles of diving or exactly why certain conditions are a mandatory fail.
And now the OHS bull has reached the point where I have to sign five separate pieces of paper to go for a charter dive with a commercial club. Overkill.
Anyone, however, can buy a compressor and gear (or borrow it) and go out and kill themselves without any training.
And people still die for the same reasons they die in the bush: bad luck,ignorance/inexperience or pushing the rules.

I am simply asking that Parks' show some drive to examine each tragedy and near miss (something that us in private enterprise are at threat of goal terms need to do) and work out what, if anything, they can do. A while back the Police were so annoyed by avoidable "rescues" that they drove the joint meetings to work through the issues, or so was reported in the papers. Has Parks reported back? It would be great to know what are the real risks. It may will be the statistically significant "rescue" is the fat and forty with minor injuries rather than harping on about a comparably rare case of over ambition by the young.

Maybe it is just too much to hope that Parks would consider education rather than curling up in a ball and not talking to anyone apart to mutter their mantra of no money. Sadly it will likely take a dramatic tragedy to drag Parks kicking and screaming into modern risk management responsibility and provide information. Sure, the terminally stupid will not read it, or follow it, but those that do will be better place to enjoy the Parks in sensible safety. The first start is some data. not assumptions or dictatorial decrees from Parks.

Your second last sentence is the real issue. There are plenty of signs about explaining to people what the risks of entering certain areas are, and what sort of equipment they should have, and still most people don't read the details or ignore them.
And as for the 'mantra of no money', it's very real. You keep losing focus of what the real purpose of National Parks is: preservation & protection of the environment. Human recreation is an added benefit, but it should always come second to the primary purpose. And when there isn't enough money to properly protect the land they have to manage, no Parks service should be expected to use what little they do have to take care of numpties who are going to get themselves in trouble without 24/7 nannies.

[walkinTas]

You can't legislate against stupidity. Sadly! That would be discrimination.

It is not "places" that are risky. It is what individuals do and how they do it that increases or decreases the degree of risk. Human factors like over enthusiastic belief in one's own ability, lack of sensible caution, lack of experience, lack of planning, inability to cope with contingencies, and taking inadequate equipment are more likely the cause of most mishaps. Occasionally its natural forces and encounters with wild animals (but that too can be lack of preparation and planning) - mostly its the human factor that creates and increases the risk. Rarely is it just plain bad luck - but %$@# happens.

[blacksheep]

long line Darwinism.

[wayno]

“Adventure is just bad planning.”
― Roald Amundsen

“I may say that this is the greatest factor: the way in which the expedition is equipped, the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order, luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time, this is called bad luck.”
― Roald Amundsen

[walkinTas]

long line Darwinism.

I'm reminded of a conversation with my daughter a few years back. She is above average intelligence and she told me that if she had three wishes she'd wish she was the stupidest person on the planet. Meaning that the average IQ would be closer to 140 than the current 100 and thus avoiding the need to associate with stupid people. At the time I didn't bother explaining the obvious weakness in the theory - all she'd achieve is a shift in the bell curve to the right. What I instead said was a quote from Forrest Gump - "stupid is as stupid does".

I not sure that it's a problem evolution can fix, but I'm happy to give natural selection a chance.

[wayno]

hte problem will continue, large no's of people sheltered from decent exposure to the wilderness who bite off more than they can chew in the wilderness will continue to come a cropper...

[Taurë-rana]

long line Darwinism.

I'm reminded of a conversation with my daughter a few years back. She is above average intelligence and she told me that if she had three wishes she'd wish she was the stupidest person on the planet. Meaning that the average IQ would be closer to 140 than the current 100 and thus avoiding the need to associate with stupid people. At the time I didn't bother explaining the obvious weakness in the theory - all she'd achieve is a shift in the bell curve to the right. What I instead said was a quote from Forrest Gump - "stupid is as stupid does".

I not sure that it's a problem evolution can fix, but I'm happy to give natural selection a chance.

There is an assumption there that IQ and common sense go hand in hand, this is often not the case...

Speaking as one who is good at IQ tests but often struggles with managing day to day living.

[walkinTas]

There is an assumption there that IQ and common sense go hand in hand, this is often not the case...

Believe me, I make no assumptions about IQ and common sense. I wasn't even really commenting on common sense at all, though, stupidity by definition is a lack of common sense.

Still, if common sense is "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts" (Merriam-Webster) or "Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters" (google define) then its existence is a bit subjective, but a lack of common sense is usually obvious. That is, deciding what is "sound and prudent judgement" will be subjective, but poor judgement and lack of prudence often leads to an obvious outcome. People appear stupid because they do stupid things - "stupid is what stupid does".

So will there always be people who exhibit poor judgement and lack of prudence. Well, I am not at all sure we can evolve away from stupidity, but Black Sheep's "long line Darwinism" might offer a glimmer of hope.