Recreational snowmobilers are dying

Measured against how many recreational automotive drivers killed in the same period?

I don't know. What is a "recreational automotive driver"? I'm not talking about people violating laws, because I want to compare apples with apples. You would also have to exclude auto drivers using their vehicle purely as a mode of transport, even if their destination involved recreation.

Have you seen any report on such deaths, Boom Boom?

There are so many automotive deaths reported every day almost that I don't think it'd be possible to keep a record even if their reason for driving was known. Similarly, not all skidoo drivers are out there for recreational purposes - here, and in the north, skidooing is a way of life, for at least four months of the year. Rather than talk about "recreational snowmobile deaths", why not just say "snowmobile deaths" and be done with it?

If You're At "37,189 Avalanche Injury Free Days" And Counting

You might be from Saskatchewan.

And mountain climbers and skiers have been dying in avalanches, in falls, and hitting trees etc, as long as people have been doing it!

Wonder how many people die from elective surgery each year?

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

Sorry Boom Boom, I didn't get your answer. You raised the issue of "recreational automotive drivers". Got any numbers on those deaths, or no?

And yes, remind, I realize that more Canadians die of accidents at home than in Afghanistan, but what does that have to do with this topic?

I'm fine with that, remind, but I believe in society playing a role in regulation, health and safety, education, and yes, protecting people from themselves and from others. I am not a "libertarian". When allegedly experienced people go off and get killed for no rational reason, in conditions where the experts tell people not to play, and when no one can seem to identify any regulation they have violated, I simply ask whether there is room for regulation. If the answer is no, then so be it.

Unionist, I believe there enough regulations at this time. I believe most of these events could not have been prevented. I believe in most cases, the people evolved in these events were very prepared.

I am not aware of any restricted or no-go areas in any of these recent events.

Isn't driving a car on icy roads regularly, year after year, chronic risk taking?

Indeed it is. But I was asking about recreational driving. Risks are necessary. Macho exhibitionism is not.

Here in central Ontario it seems to be mostly people going through the ice and hitting obstructions. The reason seems to be alcohol and or speed. Sleds these days are very fast, I see them zooming across the lake here at speeds near hundred miles an hour. Makes it difficult to stop when open water or thin ice or an ice ledge shows up fifty or hundred feet ahead.

In the seventies and eighties I lived in the Arctic where skidoos where use a lot. The big problem with them there was that the machines tended to be somewhat unreliable and could breakdown a longway out. And walking back across the tundra at minus 35 or 45 could be dangerous if not prepared for it.

Same is true of driving while impaired, or riding a bike without a helmet. But we wouldn't want to repeal those laws, would we?

Well, to be fair, many more people also do drugs than do snowmobiling. They're cheaper, for one :) 

For some perspective here's the avalanche stats on people caught in avalanches killed and injured going back over ten years.

http://www.avalanche.org/av-reports/index.html 

On quick calculation in a ten year period on average 12-13 people die though that got a bit scued by 2003/2004 season when 28 people died, 18 of which were skiers.

I guess part of the point of this is that for one this isn't just a snowmobile thing as snowmoblie accidents aren't the only ones dying. This happens to be a bad year for snowmobilers. In 2004 the same could be said for skiers.

Any sort of real regulations to help "protect people from themselves " really would have to be directed at all winter recreation not just snowmobiling.

I wish critics of snowmobiling could come here for a week or so during winter, and watch folks go up and down the coast on their machines, and go about their work on these machines as well. For four or five months of the year, we have a skidoo highway that makes it possible for us to visit other communities, in the absence of a regular road. Folks here are mostly very responsible with their machines. There's a few bad apples, but let's not ruin what is a way of life for many based on the bad behaviour of a tiny segment of the snowmobiling population.

I absolutely agree. Although the parameters are quite different, skiing and snowboarding need to be far more regulated as well. Many people are injured and killed for no good reason practising these sports. While the risk can't be eliminated, it can be greatly reduced.

Excellent point, ElizaQ.

Thank you.

Elizaq,  then all "recreational", or "choice" activities would have to be regulated beyond belief. Boating of all types, swimming, hiking, etc...

IMV, if you don't want to do it, DON"T.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

 Don't forget bike riding!    Yep hate to use the cliche but 'slippery slope' seems to fit here.  Might as well add team sports in there as well. People get hurt and yes sometimes die doing those too.   

 I think we might need to think about regulating Wii use too. No deaths that I know of but Wii injuries aren't uncommon.   

 No they aren't legal regulations though many mountains do have mandatory helment rules for specific areas like snow parks, and every place I worked had mandatory helment rules for kids programs.  

 And sorry my bad I was looking at stats for the US that included ALL injuries not just severe ones like your report does.  There doesn't seem to be an equivalant set of stats for Canada without delving in the the injury report sites.   

 Also to point out that report posted says it includes all severe injuries related to snowmobiling not just recreational ones.  I tried to download the full report to see if it broke it down more but it won't download.  It also doesn't say specially what they count as severe injury.  

 I'm not sure how report is really fits  with the points your trying to make around  the BC deaths as they are avalanche related.  I'm also not sure why you're bringing up helmets as an issue related to those deaths.  A helmet isn't going to make any difference if you're caught and buried in an avalanche. You die from being crushed or from suffocation. 

 I don't have any issue with making helmets mandatory.  I don't have much issue if they make it mandatory in skiing and snowboarding either. I personally wore a helmet all the time and it saved my noggin on a number of occasions.  If that's what your talking about that really fine.  Helmet regulations however are not going to stop people from getting hurt or dying in things like avalanches and the numerous other ways you can hurt or kill yourself doing these sports.  

Just popping in to note something about regulations themselves. For the record I'm a big city woman  who's never done any of the outdoor sports being discussed here. And I live in Toronto. 

But my point is this: There seems to be a misunderstanding about what regulations are supposed to *do*. Regulations are seen to be about keeping people safe or saving people's lives, when really they are about liability.

If you go past the "Beware of avalanches. Don't ski or snowboard" sign, I would suggest that the sign was not there to stop you. Hey, when the government wants to stop the public from doing something, hello, it makes it crystal clear with the resources it has. I say the sign is there so that IF something happens to you, then you (or your surviving family) can't sue or claim anything.

I'm wearing a cynical hat this morning for some reason. 

Would you cheer the death of this recreational petroleum consumer as well?

How about a helmet while riding a bike or motorcycle? Or a seatbelt in a car? Not needed for "a few minutes trip inside a village"?

"Unenforceable"?

Or how about a hard hat or safety glasses or steel-toed boots while just walking very quickly through the shop from one end to the other?

I've heard these latter debates all my life in the workplace. Luckily, there the rules are clear. You do what you're told, or you're disciplined, ultimately fired. Many lives have been saved that way.

ElizaQ wrote:

So you're assuming that mandatory helmet laws are an indicator of being regulated then.  Okay, you win. I obviously don't know what I'm talking about. 

You said skiing and snowboarding were highly regulated. Rather than me guessing and you responding with cute answers, perhaps it would be more productive if you just told me what you had in mind.

I try to take complex problems (complex for me that is) one simple step at a time. You said:

I quoted statistics showing the very contrary. I didn't say what the solution is, because I don't know. Are we at least agreed, then, that snowmobiling is a far higher cause of severe injury than (say) ice hockey?

That's cute too, but when I asked about legal bans on venturing into areas and at times declared dangerous by the avalanche experts, you did say: "Yes it perhaps it might lessen it." Well, that's a start. Would you oppose such legally enforceable regulations, and if so, why?

Unionist, would making it illegal to drive past warning signs prevent these deaths? What percentage of them? How many prosecutions would local governments then have to get themselves involved in every winter, to "save" these idiots from themselves. If those are the regulations you;re proposing. I think Webgear was pointing that these recent deaths have not in fact occurred in off-bound areas.

LTJ, I saw that item yesterday. I don't see how it's relevant here though. I think it deserves a thread of its own. See above. 

Don't know. Does making it illegal to drive through red lights prevent deaths? What percentage of them? Maybe just put the red lights up as "advisory" and let drivers proceed with caution? they've been warned, after all?

I don't know the answer. What I'm hearing in this thread (not from you) is the kind of arguments one used to hear against seatbelts, helmets, laws about cellphone use while driving, workplace safety and health legislation, mandatory winter tires, airbags, vaccination, ... I believe in reasonable laws protecting people rather than "well, we warned them, that's good enough".

Who knows? One or two high-profile ones could have a very salutary effect. Laws even help social peer pressure. If there were (say) a law prohibiting snowmobiling in certain areas during certain official warnings, then maybe a spouse or a child or a parent or a friend would have more clout when saying, "Don't go there today!" Another life saved.

Were any of these deaths in restricted, off-limits areas? And were any of them preventable by the wearing of helmets? I think that's the point people have been making here.

And how would you enforce that regulation?

Again, there is helmut laws in BC, there has been since the 1970's, (which is decades earlier than other provinces compliance to such regulations) except when you are on non-maintained public land. And most, if not all, snowmobilers/sledders wear them ALL the time. It is part of their essential equipment for several reasons, as I noted in the last thread. Any such talk stating there isn't, is merely, at best, a red herring trying to indicate a "lawlessness mentality".

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

I agree with you Unionist!  Though I am not sure what the argument here is being made by others.

If this is the argument I don't understand why putting in government regulation around things like helmets and off limit areas that are not already in place to save others lives is any different between seatbelt laws, airbag laws and max capacity per vehicle (ie number of people in car per seatbelt) in snowmobiling, skiing, snowboarding.  If they all are common sense and most responsible people who participate in the sports are already doing it it won't be a big impact on their life.

  It provides a normative guideling of what is expected.  People when driving don't all drive 100 on the 401 but people generally drive around 110-115 (not looking at the two ends of the slope of 100 and 120) but when you hear about someone driving 140 or 150 you can't believe it because the norm is far below that. The cops don't routinely enforce the law for people doing 120-130 but most drivers stick to 120 or below even if they won't get caught.

 Would you want to take out seatbelt laws, airbag laws and max capacity per vehicle to disassemble the privitization and control of the commons?

 If it's all about setting 'normative guidelines' then those are already in place.   It's called 'avalanche warnings'. They aren't there to look pretty.  It's called general outdoor safety guidelines which are the responsibility of anyone going into the outdoors to learn to mitigate the risks.  If they choose not to then they take the consequences.  Recreating in the wilderness is not like driving a car on the highway in a human made and controlled system.  

 I knew Harold Waldner, the man from Rycroft who died while out sledding last week.  He was a real nice man.  This is a shitty comment.

Thank you, Refuge, for putting some of my thoughts into better words than I was able to manage. I too don't understand the view that favours self-regulation but abhors social (i.e. legal) regulation. ElizaQ expressed a philosophical reticence about state control. Maybe that's the key. I personally favour the state protecting people even if the people in question are stupid macho jerks. In the trade union, too, we spend lots of our quality time protecting a few idiots against themselves. It makes for a better society IMO, but that's just my opinion.

I understand that there are some normative guidelines, I just question why they can't make these normative guidelines into law to strengthen them. 

 I would disagree with you that recreating in the wilderness if extremly different than driving a car on the highway in a human made community system and therefore should not be regulated.  In fact the law would make it crystal clear to people who are trying to find out what the guidelines are because they don't change.  It is the law.  This snowmobiling club have these rules, this snowmobiling have different ones, the ski hills all have different regulations as well.  If there was a law it would be a really easy way for people to learn what they are suppose to do and what they aren't.  Sometimes it is not a choice to not know the guidelines sometimes it is just a misunderstanding about what the guidelines are for a particular place.

  When I was a girl guide we reguarily talked with Ontario Conservation officails before camping about legal no go zones and areas where we had certain guidelines ie laws that we were not allowed to break. We could be brought to court if we broke those guidelines so they were taken seriously by all.  That was not just for our own protection but for the protection of the environment.  We also followed the girl guide "regulations" about camping that were not law, also for our own safety and environmental protection.  Though we followed both I know very few that follow the girl guide "regulations", only those who are outdoors savy, when camping but do know most follow the law around fires and no go zones for the conservation authority because they are easy to find out. The law seems to strengthen the understanding of people who might not have the outdoorsy savy.

I don't think their deaths hurt anyone except their families and friends. It's when they end up in ICUs or wheelchairs that society has to pay.

  Oh good grief.  Please read what I said that in relation too.  I don't have an overall philisophical reticence about state control.  I'm not at all against it all in environments like workplaces and other human made systems.  It's a difference in philosophy outside of such areas.  The wilderness is called the wilderness for a reason.  It's wild.   Nature is the ultimate ruler there, not humans.  It can't be ultimately made perfectly safe and bubblewrapped for our safe use and consumption.  It's not a union workplace.  In my mind I don't even understand how the analogy even compares but at least it does explain more of the worldview of where you're coming from.  

That's not a bad idea, Unionist. If the guy/gal isn't dead. That's the first suggestion you've made in scores of posts about the "need" for regulations.  

Not to put too fine a point on it but I am reading a fascinating book from Andil Gosine and Cheryl Teelucksingh - Environmental Justice and Racism in Canada. Emond Montgomery Publications -  that pinpoints that view of wilderness as explaining a lot of why degradation is allowed to happen in such "lawless" spaces.

I am not defending a bubblewrapping of nature.  I am defending bringing in a set of clear across the board (in this case across the province, but as likely happened with seatbelt laws good laws tend to be standardized throughout the country) set of rules that make it easier for people to understand what they are suppose to do and what they are not.

Naute will always be the ultimate ruler and people will face the consequence of nature irregardeless of human laws however that does not mean that we can't put them to help people understand what they need to do and what they don't.

I know that in the workplace there are regualtions that you can be fired for but "nature" is also the ruler there - if you use a machine without a guard and your hand goes in - guess what you lose your hand but the regualtion is there to let people know to use the guard not to bubblewrap nature.

Thank you Refuge and martin for your remarks. Little discussions like these, when multiplied, will one day give rise to better ways of protecting both people and nature.

Double straw man, bagkitty. You refer to farmers working with equipment, I refer to mere recreational use, and not at all that of people working in mining and forestry.

  These are different things. Ski hills are not primary wilderness areas which is where these avalanches occur and what is in question.    Same with trails that different snowmobile clubs and their trails. 

 I actually think this might speak at least one issue or perspective here.  I was a girl guide too so know where you're coming from. We did the same thing.  We camped in more regulated areas like provincial parks and what would be the equivalent of conservation zones in Ontario and found out the rules for these areas.  There really is a difference though from what we're talking about in BC vs Ontario.  Unless you go far north in Ontario or other eastern provinces,  you don't find the vast areas of undeveloped wilderness like is common all over BC. If you head up the mountains  north/east of BC's largest city you hit primary wilderness that goes on for days and days.  It's right in your face.  In most areas of BC, which due to my treeplanting days I've been to most of,  it's right in your face.  It's everywhere.  Walk off the pavement, literally and you're there.  I think Remind could probably attest to what I'm trying to say here. 

  I moved to Ontario a couple of years ago and one of the biggest differences is the distance that I have to travel to get anywhere even close to what was always just outside the door in every place I lived in BC.   I have also noticed differences in how people here percieve 'going into the wilderness'.  Driving up the road to one of the parks on the Bruce Pennisula is considered a wilderness excursion where I am.   It is, but in comparison it's just a pocket sized piece of wilderness that's been made quite safe already. Parks and conservation areas are semi-regulated areas that are relatively, in comparison easy to keep watch over.   In BC we're talking about vast areas the dwarf the size of any human development.  There are huge parks, similar to places like Algonquin Park but the majority of the land is simply just wilderness.  

 Thats one of the reasons I think that I and perhaps Remind as well understand intrisically how ludricrous it is to say, well just ban people from going places if they're deemed too dangerous to protect them, as well as how insane it would be in terms of infrastruture  and human hours needed to monitor and to even determine those bans in all the areas of BC in the first place.  I can't even imagine what that would look like. 

   Actually I percieve that it's  as much you, as anyone else, who seems to be having a visceral reaction to people who actually do have more knowledge about these things and them not agreeing with your perceptions of what constitutes the problem.  That you seem to be blaming this on some sort of anti-urban thing is part of the problem.  I'm not anti-urban, nor anti-eastern. I live in the east.  I grew up in the big city.   You can't peg me into such contrived category to help you explain what must be 'actually' going on here.   Please explain what  you think is actually going on then?  

Hate to beat on a dead horse  but I'd just add that the only folks who wear skidoo helmets in our small villages and towns in this isolated territory are those who have just arrived from the trails, and as soon as they stop they take their helmets off and don't put them back on in town - only when they get set to go back out on the trails. There's no valid reason I can see for wearing a helmet inside the villages or towns here, other than it is the law. There's certainly no safety reason to wear a helmet in town. Indeed, some helmets block peripheral vision (and hearing) and are a safety issue in a built up area. Folks here wear their helmets when they need them - out on the trails. The law be damned.

Remind talked about sledders causing avalanches in the previous thread. Not me. Not you. Let me know if you have trouble finding the post.

Meanwhile, other than enforceability, let me know why you oppose strict legal regulation. Or maybe you don't. Just engage the discussion without being so defensive, please. And, if possible, without telling me how much more you know about the subject than I do. I concede that point, one million times over.