Recreational sports deaths part 3

The point being that we are safer on a noisy smelly skidoo?

Okay rubber boots for thunder storms.

No golf.

I will forget boating and swimming.

The point being unless we stay indoors 24/7 and do nothing, "recreational" sports deaths will continue to occur. Winter recreational sports are relatively safe compared to summer ones as well. Don't know why anyone would target "some" winter sports as being unusually unsafe considering.

And this has been an unusual winter sports winter in BC, as usually the snow pack is much more stable and there are very few deaths, especially in compare to other season's recreational sports.

From long ago:

Workplace safety and an individual's recreational habits are not comparable. In the latter's case, death or injury does often come down to "blame the individual". You can't get around that. Someone jumping off the CN tower with a bad parachute has only themself to blame. Likewise the backcountry trekker.

As for denial, that problem lies with those people involved in the incidents (they aren't accidents), who obviously ignored, downplayed, or did not understand the dangers involved. They also had an overconfidence in their own abilities to recognize dangers, or to deal with the situation once it turned bad.

These aren't tragedies. These are the quite predictable results of high risk activity. The same reason I don't consider deaths of Canadian soldiers tragic. You stick a fork in a power outlet, don't come crying to me when you get a shock.

I recommend everyone wear a helmet, safety glasses and steel toed boots while babbling.

Moderators?

Motorized sleds are obviously a necessity in some areas and for some activities; they should never be uniformly discredited. When it comes to leisure activities, society has to weigh the costs it incurs when fatalities escalate. For instance, the Quebec government has just increased the cost of insurance for high-powered motorcycles, given their overrepresentation in fatal accidents and the ensuing social costs. Motorcyclists are furious, demonstrating, impeding traffic on highways, etc. But we can understand that an activity where someone buys himself a motorbike that can race 235 km-h means that that person ought to pay back some of the costs he is exposing society to. In the case of drowning or being struck by thunder while golfing, risks are much less obvious, although leisure motorboating has become targeted for intervention in recent years and for good reason too. Like leisure sledding deaths, it seems to me that they incur major social costs and that it would be normal for sociey to intervene with stricter rules about speed, alcohol consumption, restricted areas and periods - all of which can be seen to be involved in most fatalities. This involves challenging an unfortunate libertarian ethos about activities that should remain "free" because they occur off-road, "in the wild".

As for noise and smelliness, I certainly support stricter regulations on sled makers for more effective mufflers* and banning 2-stroke engines.

___________________________

* of course, this will mean more head-on crashes...

The point being unless we stay indoors 24/7 and do nothing...........

We could fall down the stairs. Drown in the bathtub. Burn in a house fire.......

I get the point.

Oh, so you are arbitrarily stating, or attempting to, that  under 20 sledding deaths per year, (and it is an unusual year) have more social costs than 200 -500 times the amount of deaths from water related sports activities, eh martin. :rolleyes:

Got SFA to do with Libertarian anything, unless we all stay indoors 24/7  people will die from non-natural death activities. Personally, I believe, one never knows when one is going to die from something, or another. And seeing as the cancer rate is through the roof, I would rather enjoy living, over staying "safe" inside and dying from cancer, heart disease, strokes or other.

And speaking of cancer,  city people are busily rounding up, or killxing their weeds,  so they have pretty lawns, and this "Libertarian" fetish is causing multitudes of people to die from cancer, how about all you "Libertarian" city people  pay attention to your own "back yards", so to speak?

No, I mean that it is much harder to keep millions of people out of swimming pools, lakes, rivers and non-motorized watercraft than it is to keep a few thousand sledders out of avalanche-prone areas and off machines that can race at incredible speeds. One never knows when one is going to die of anything, but I'll bet snowmobiling is more of a high-risk activiy than going near the water.

Good point about the people poisoning the environment with weedkillers. All the more argument for State intervention.

10's of thousands of sledders martin and millions of skiers. And why should they be penalized over and above boaters, swimmers, etc?

I worked in a plant which went from "no mandatory hard hat" to "mandatory hard hat", with disciplinary consequences. The H&S committee was instrumental in making it mandatory. If a worker didn't wear a hard hat after that, I blame the individual. Before - I blame the employer.

Likewise with seatbelts in motor vehicles, the only difference being that instead of "employer" you can substitute "society" or "legislature" or (sometimes) "auto manufacturers".

Likewise with helmets while skiing or cycling or playing hockey. These are only "individual" decisions as long as society decides not to protect its members - like the employer deciding not to protect employees.

Not comparable?? It's identical. And the arguments I've seen here are exactly the same ones (mocking and ridicule and all) that we got from workers and employers who didn't want to see change.

I'm still not clear on what solution Unionist is proposing for keeping people out of avalanche areas, because I'm pretty sure these snowmobiling fatalities are not occurring through lack of a helmet. What are you proposing, Unionist?

As far as helmets for bicyclists, motorcyclists, even skiers, sure, I don't have a problem with that.

I tried to answer your questions seriously in the previous thread. You followed up with your headlines like "Man Shot to Death While Riding Bicycle", and many other sidesplitting one-liners. When I asked why you were doing that, you replied:

Which is it today - Dr. Jekyll, or Mr. Hyde?

Building motorized recreational products is a huge business - Quebec's Bombardier got their start building skidoos, and built an empire from that. Honda, Yamaha, Polaris, Arctic Cat, are all huge multinational companies also with empires depending on motorized recreational products being purchased - ATVs, skidoos, motorcycles, and marine products. And, marine products and motorcycles - I couldn't list all the companies producing motorized recreational crap. Not all of this production goes to recreation use, however - there are communities like mine that rely on skidoos to get around all winter (there's no connecting roads here); ATVs to get around in summer months (not everyone here can afford a car or truck), and boats with outboard motors are essential to the fishing industry (larger longliners use small boats as emergency vessels, and for going where the bigger fishing vessels can not). Makes no sense to single out skidoos unless you're also going to target all that other stuff out there.

You should tell God that. She is killing recreational snowmobilers and skiers in B.C. avalanches this winter in disproportionate numbers.

Here are some non-daredevilish cyclists in Amsterdam: http://amsterdamize.com/ [19] and Copenhagen: www.copenhagencyclechic.com [20] safely cycling with no kit, gear or protective devices. Howdat? By eliminating the danger at the source (old trade-union watchword here) and creating a critical mass of people who cycle every day it is feasable in normal work, leisure or party clothes. By creating a network of cycle paths. And by ensuring priority for pedestrians and cyclists over cars - if you hit someone with a car in the Netherlands, the burden of proof is on you, whatever the circumstances.

boom boom, I think special provisions are required in communities such as yours - I've never lived for long in an area as remote as yours, but I have lived for a while north of Lac St-Jean in an area where the skidoo was a lifeline in the wintertime, and worked up in the Far North where it has replaced the dog team. I think that is a very different situation than choosing them as a weekend recreation over a no-polluting sport such as crosscountry skiing.

I don't get why those idiots are skidooing in known avalance ranges. There's not enough money (or other motivation) to get me anywhere near that type of skidooing situation, and I skidoo almost every day of the winter here. Of course, as Lagatta mentioned, my situation is different - skidoos are our only way of getting around all winter.

Still not answering the question. I looked for your previous answers but couldn't find them. I think maybe you suggested that there be patrols near the avalanche zones to keep people out. Others pointed out to you the near-impossibility and futility of this. What exactly would you like to see happen if you feel that recreational snowmobilers shouldn't be dying?

I believe Unionist answered this in the previous thread when he stated that he did not have enough knowledge to know about the specifics behind snowmobiling and was asking others for a risk assessment to look at ways that some of the deaths are preventable.

Considering he only got blame the individaul and denial of the problem he kept asking hoping someone would talk to him about some possibilities to avoid at least some of the snowmobiling deaths.

He never said he has the answer, he said he wanted to talk about ways to possibly save lives.

Actually risk assessments are done on everything from workplaces to human health to the environment to therapy and sports.

On an ocean beach, they won't let you go into the water when the red flag is up. That could be the undertanding in high-risk areas or at high-risk times (e.g. when the ice thins on a lake). You don't use a motorsled there or then unless you have a compellng reason to do so. NOT rocket science.

26-year-old skier dies in Québec avalanche

And I don't get why people would get excited over all this; I believe the technical term for being killed while skidooing in an avalanche zone is "natural selection."

Last night I was talking with an old buddy who is a skidoo enthusiast.  He told me he has taken his skidoo into those very places where people have been killed.

Then again, he's a Nortel employee, and thus is used to living dangerously.

I know it's a long shot, but maybe contact the homicide squad.

2 Ontario skiers plunge to deaths near B.C. resort

:rolleyes:

you betcha.......love it! :D

I guess after opening this thread, you had second thoughts? Not interested in news about recreational sports deaths after all? I thought perhaps this horrific news story could at least be greeted with a respectful silence while the authorities work out what happened.

Nope...not interested in axe to grind postings, particularily when they are about those who choose to live life, and perhaps die while doing so...

Having some familiarity with the Rockies' snowpack, The 'Stoke, and people who venture into that terrain, I put skiers\boarders into two basic categories: those who have the skills to be out there and those people who don't.  That's not a judgement on the deceased skiers or the young person still alive, since I don't know their level of preparedness.  I know lifelong residents of the Rockies who have the skills to ski in these areas, but rarely do so. 

The allure of backcountry, ungroomed, untouched terrain is powerful on many levels, and accessing that experience brings with it a very high level of risk, especially for people unfamiliar with the terrain.  So while I feel for the skiers, having lost their lives, and their families, I can't help but think of all the people playing in the mountains who have no business doing so.  If you're from Grimbsy, Ontario, and want to experience the Stoke, then there are professional guides and services that are in place for a reason. 

I worked in Banff for a while.  I would meet people constantly who ventured "out of bounds" or went into "the backcountry" with no training, no avy beacons, no shovels, probes, nothing.  That there aren't more accidents surprised me then, and now.  I also know pro-level mountain people who have been buried in avalanches.

The snowpack in the Rockies is very icy, and compact icy...unless you are on the tops, as the day time melt and overnight freeze on the lower inclines has made it like  curling rink ice, only on a 90 degree incline.

BTW Polunatic2, there needs be no benefit of the doubt given.

5 Quebeckers die in snowmobile accidents over the weekend

Two snowmobilers killed and 31 spectators injured last week at Boulder Mountain, and now a 30-year-old Calgary man killed yesterday at Eagle Pass Mountain - landslides on both occasions. The Canadian Avalanche Association believes last week's avalanche was triggered by "high-marking", and the police are conducting a criminal investigation (whatever that means...).

Here's the preliminary report into last week's slide:

Extreme snowmobiling: A turbo-charged pastime with an adrenalin rush

The buddy I mentioned upthread told me he does this - blasting down a 75-degree slope on the side of a mountain on a skidoo.

That's not for me; I prefer safe, boring sports like hockey and crokinole.

Another avalanche - more deaths:

B.C. avalanche kills French skiers

yep, it has been a busy avalanche week in BC.

They do not just blast down the slopes, they blast up the slopes, it is called high marking. And its a good thing there was avalanche warnings out, as the crowd at the Revelstoke gathering usually brings about 1000-1500 people out from all over NA. This year there was only 200 in attendance. Could not have imagined  the mess, if there had been a 1000 more there, like usual.

They are trying to find, and then investigate, in order to perhaps lay charges against a particular fellow from Calgary, who they think might be one of the primary organizers of it.

Say think, because the high marking event in Revlstoke, at Boulder Mountain, has no official organization to it. It apparently just "happens" and people collectively show up, seemingly unsolicated.

If there was an official organization  behind it, they could  have held them accountable for still holding the event, even when avalanche warnings were so high. But there isn't one, as apparently the people themselves "hold it". So....it is looking to be as if they will have to charge all, or none.

Now having said all of that, I am still not sure of why we have to have a thread on recreational snow deaths. Are we needing one on recreational car deaths, or boating deaths too?

Search me, remind. You opened the thread with stories of boating and golfing deaths. Got any more of those?

Why do we have threads on anything?

LOL, good point unionist, so I did..guess I should be slapping up the number of recreational automobile accident deaths across Canada then eh!

Think it was last week that I heard it was 400+ for the week.

You know al'q I ask myself that more and more often these days too

By the way, remind, I was questioning what kind of criminal charges the police might be investigating - given that there seem to be no laws governing even the most insane of these activities (like the highmarking, which actually caused one and maybe the other avalanche as well)...

Well, it seems from one report that they may be getting ready to charge some duffuses for putting their children's lives in danger:

The death and injury toll has become so scandalous - and the circumstances so horrifying (causing avalanches, ignoring elementary safety procedures) - that the police are finally, hopefully taking action.

If parents allowed their small kids to ride in vehicles without proper seats, harnesses, or belts, they would surely be criminally liable, and might ultimately have to hand the kids over to someone who cares.

Let's see if that happens to some of these yahoos who are not content to merely put their own lives in danger on the slopes...

Do not disagree with you at all in the child endangerment aspect unionist. As anything that willfully endangers a child's life, or takes away their physical body choice on a permanent basis is wrong and punishable, IMV.

The injury death toll is not scandalous though, it is comparable to other types of recreational activity injuries and deaths.  But am not going there again, we have been over and over this territory before unionist. And you know as well as I do we disagree with each other over thinking that people need to be banned from nature 24/7.

Remind, I've come around to your way of thinking about people that are prepared to risk their own lives for a thrill.

In these recent cases, however, we have individuals putting the lives of others (their families, and strangers) at risk. They should be subject to the full force of the law.

Strangers at risk?

I stop at children being endangered when they do not know what the risk is to themselves, though on further thought I suppose we could state that parents who let their children out of the house for anything recreational are recklously and  needlessly endangering them. Even allowing them piercings and tattoos are needlessly endangering them.

Yes - like triggering an avalanche that buries spectators. I think that's as criminally negligent as operating a sled while impaired.

Taking a kid to a backcountry event when you know there's a danger of an avalanche being triggered is what I'm talking about. You mean, you can explain the risk to your 10-year-old, and if she understands the risk and comes along, you're not legally responsible? I think we're back to total disagreement, remind.

That's the kind of "argument" one would expect for not forcing kids to buckle up or not letting them buy smokes or drink while underage - "hey, they could get killed crossing the street!"

This is where we need laws in certain areas - to eliminate "choice" and "judgment" and "knowing the risks".

I think in this case, there is certainly a negligence issue.

Let's suppose that these very experienced high-marking enthusiasts have an understanding of snow conditions, but decide to go ahead anyway.  Okay, they're responsible for their own safety.  But when you're doing it and there are a bunch of spectators and less experienced people coming along, if you haven't adequately informed them of what the conditions are, you have some culpability if they are injured.  Or, IMO, there should be.

Even if there is no formal organization in charge, somebody put this together and made the call to go on even in unsafe conditions. 

lack of knowlege is always 20/20 it seems.

If laws are what you were looking for, Unionist, why didn't you say so in the first place? I fully agree that those who don't die in their own stupid hijinx should be charged with negligence, misconduct, reckless endangerment - whatever it takes. They should also be liable for all costs associated with their rescue and any danger or harm they have created for others. 

Gee, jas, this is part 3 of these threads. I've been calling for laws since the minute the discussion started. This was January 18, 2009:

Think back... and you may recall your reply:

I went on to prove - with sources - that B.C. was the least regulated of all jurisdictions in these areas. The debate has raged here over restriction and regulation vs. individual freedom, and I haven't hidden my views from the start.

Now, it appears from one article, the police may be looking to apply already existing laws to try to stop the kind of insanity witnessed in the past week in B.C. Despite my skepticism about the police, I must say I wish them full success in this endeavour.

That doesn't eliminate the need for much more and stricter regulation of the kinds I advocated in those threads - but it's a start.

Anyway jas, I'm heartened that we are in agreement on this issue and have been since the discussion began.

Unionist never ceases to amaze me, he's basically a kind of inverted fundamentalist xian who believes in preserving the material souls of people no matter what the cost, they really are people who value security more then liberty

You disgust me unionist,you're the perfect reason why the state needs to be destroyed once and for all, one day your kind might actually get in and make orwell's hypothoses a reality, the notion live and let live means nothing to you.

You're the first one on my list, Stirner. You independent thinkers need to be taught a lesson. Like how to use spellcheckers. And by the way, it's spelled Christian, not xian - or are you one of those faux anarchists who is afraid God will send you to Hell if you take His Son's Name in vain?

If my post has mis-spellings unionist its usually because I'm posting to someone I don't take seriously, actually I used xian because as far as I know shortening the word is indicative of not taking that religion seriously. You are far more christian then I ever will be as you have basically the same structure of prescription for people as they do, you simply substitute body of christ for body of humanity to the exclusion of all unique individuals including obviously those who live on the edge.

My life's mission is to strengthen the STATE until it becometh a veritable JUGGERNAUT which, like a wintry avalanche in the cragged Columbian climes, will mercilessly crush all who stand in the way of PROGRESS.

Be ye warnèd.

Can we save the religion bashing for another thread please?

al Q I think you should start a thread on that.

Religion bashing? Actually Maysie, since you've come to visit our thread, why don't you check out post #51, see if it suits babble policy, and enforce it. Thanks a lot.

Unionist, proved your claims of least regulated wrong, so how about you stop with that erroneous contention.

I sometimes think I'd rather be swallowed by Lake Gitcheegumi while ski-dooing high than of a one in two chance of the cancer at some point. At least theyre cashing out while doing what they love. If they had more resources, they'd prolly be out climbing K2 or swimming with sharks in Australia, or something. Death is all around us and happens every day. It's a relentless cycle.

yep fidel, I agree, though not with child endangerment, children have no business on the mountains when avalanche possibility is extreme.

Oh.... a guy drowned yesterday in the the lake at Kelowna.

Third snowmobiler killed within past week in B.C.

You missed the summer sports season U.

After all there was a record number of drownings across Canada that never received any billing from you, at all.  Though I know it would be hard for you to chronicle the 500 or so who died in the water. There would have been no time for anything else to be posted by you.

Those back yard swimming pools people  have, to show their superiorness to others, are an extreme danger to their own chiildren  it appears. 

Maybe society should be thinking about criminally charging the parents who have them, seeing as how, this year at least, they are  the largest single cause of children's death in the home?

This is hilarious.

We should actually be talking about piece by piece law abolition in these end times and actually try to make a world that best reflects the anarchy of the internet even in non revolutionary times, its coming whether you like it or not.

The fact that someone can muster himself to seriously talk about the most absurd kind of life regulations when there should be none, we have to evolve a way from the limited freedom of liberalism not make it worse.

Ok, Mike, let's start with removing all those "Bridge Out!!!" road signs.

Movement and navigation within an infrastructure is not exactly the same thing as a law, hell not all roads have been state sanctioned and they more or less move things along without people falling through bridges.

How about the "Hard hat area" and "Safety glasses required" and "Safety boots area" signs at the workplace, Mike - with discipline or dismissal as the penalty for violation? Private area, not "state sanctioned". Abolish those regulations too? Why, in the old days, a fair number of workers used to survive without all that hand-holding safety stuff...

Unionist you're missing the more underlying problem of work which is forced labour and cumpulsery production, in terms of what gets done in a future freer society it should be individuals who regulate what is good for themselves, if someone wants to be the craig mactavish of those workplaces mentioned who am I to care, and at the end of the day the regulations you speak of are more about cost saving rationality then about what people in a given situation actually want. There is an inherent problem of heirarchy that goes into the daily maiming and death of workers, but guess what, it was laws representing feudal biases that made it all possible.

But that's a problem of historical acess and I don't think that will be dealt with in a reformist scheme, what I don't want however is anymore laws, which always work against the workers interest anyway, particularly if you were to see the rise of more coop like grey markets.

Both my brothers drove big block BMW motorcycles and neither has had an accident on their bikes in a combined 50 years of riding. My oldest brother raced smaller Ducati GP bikes for over ten years in his 20's at Mosport and Harewood Acres in Ontario. Never had a spill. Neither of them break the law as far as I am aware when their bikes are on the road. And I'd say they represent the mainstream of motorcyclists.

Here on the Lower North Shore skidoos are a necessity and accidents/fatalities are very rare - usually when they do happen (again, rarely) it's the result of riding on unsafe ice. I've been driving skidoos 14 years (would have been 15, but last winter we didn't get enough snow) and have never come even close to an accident situation, nor do I drive my machine fast. Alcohol is a problem, though - there simply are no police in these communities and driving under the influence does take place, although as far as I am aware not in massive quantities of drivers - just a few.

Arriving 10 months late to address Mike's comment at post 51 which is a personal attack. Mike, no personal attacks. This is a warning.

If we can follow Boom Boom's lead and return to the thread topic that would be great. And that's not a suggestion.

Snowmobile kills pedestrian in Winnipeg

Unionist, you call the targeting of a Democratic congresswoman in the States a non-newsworthy event, but you seem to have every news feed on snowmobile deaths piped into your browser.

It doesn't really matter; it's pretty trivial, but I still have no idea what the point of these threads is. And why snowmobiles?

That said, who the hell, on a snowmobile, that has headlights like any other vehicle, would not see an upright human figure walking in a field?

These threads should be about deaths by morons.

I don't think it's really proper to be discussing me. Personally, I don't care one bit more about the Democratic congresswoman than about any of the countless foreign politicians who are subject to attacks on a daily basis. Since you bothered to ask, I frankly find it offensive, lurid, and distasteful to post photos and minute by minute updates on her condition.

But I do care, a lot, about needless preventable accidental deaths of innocent people in my country, where there are inadequate regulations to avoid such deaths and injuries. And that's what these threads are about - not random shootings in foreign countries.

I've explained in great, excruciating detail in the past what I think the point is. Others of course may disagree, in whole or in part. That's what makes for interesting discussion.

I've explained this in the past, with detailed reference to the regulation and lack thereof in various provinces - in short, it's far less regimented than automobiles. I also, as a worker and trade unionist, have developed a prejudice against any "explanation" of accidents which contents itself with blaming human error or recklessness. I try to look for systemic causes and solutions - even systemic causes for recklessness, for that matter.

ETA: Read the Winnipeg Free Press article and see how the police obliquely try to blame the victim. Then read the comments to see how angry some are at that.

I don't think you have. Others have pointed out to you the number of recreational sports deaths that occur, but you seem to pick on snowmobiles. You cite articles about people going off-bounds in the Rockies and suggest it's someone other than that decision-maker's fault. In this most recent case, it is illegal to drive a snowmobile within city limits in Winnipeg, so this person will be charged.

The only point you might have is that, apparently, a licence is not required in Manitoba to drive a snowmobile. That should obviously change. But, actually, you didn't even make that point.

Then there are politicians who die in snowmobile accidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Iftody

Vic Toew's predecessor.

Personally I think they are a damned menace for a number of reasons. For one, it's not safe to go walking in the woods with dogs anymore because snowmobilers never hear what is happening right around the corner from them. 

And of course, if there is injury or death, it is not always the person at fault who pays the price. It's not just carelessness, but also that snowmobiles are increasingly powerful and fast machines,  and many drivers have headgear that makes them less and less able to hear what is going on around them.

Secondly, snowmobiles (like quads) are more of a danger because they allow people far into the back country who may not be equipped to deal with what they might encounter there. This affects them, and more importantly living things in the area they are going into.

I know about 16 years ago there was some sabotage on some of the snowmobile trails in the area where I lived - a pipe sticking up in the middle of the track. No one was caught, and of course no one knew if it was just destructive foolishness or a serious grievance.

Of course there are far more deaths from kids on three-wheelers, but snowmobiles, seadoos and ATVs are all dangerous vehicles by virtue of the number of boneheads who use them. They have some practical purposes, but unfortunately that's not how they are always operated..

(edit)

And systemic causes of recklessness?

Let's ban AC/DC, bad country music and beer.

B.C. avalanche kills 3 snowmobilers

You could say the exact same thing about cars, trucks, motorcycles....

Yes, but you are unlikely to encounter those other vehicles while you are having a pleasant walk through the bush, or canoeing. Nor do you drive cars deep into back country.

And there are laws against eight-year-olds driving cars.

Just this summer (at the Jazz festival) there was some goofball showing off with his boat at the same time as the cops were diving to find someone who had gone under the water waterskiing or someting.

And aside from the fact that there are no stop or yield signs on bush trails, there is not the same level of enforcement , or fear of enforcement among off-road vehicle users as there is with car drivers.

Yes, and we are just as unlikely to encounter skidoos, jetboats and ATV's while going for a pleasant walk down Yong Street in Toronto, but you can still get run over by a drunk driver in a car.

Same applies to offroad vehicles, at least here in Quebec.

I've seen reports of cops run over by another motorist while ticketing a vehicle on a highway shoulder. There are goofballs all over. Between Natashquan and Sept-Iles (400 km) I've yet to see one police vehicle, and I've made that trip many times.

Judging by the number of drunk drivers that still get ticketed as reported in the media, there's little fear of enforcement out there on the roads as well as on the byways. And who ever heard of chain reaction accidents out in the bush?

Boom Boom, your points are absolutely correct, except for one thing - these threads are about pointless stupid avoidable deaths during "RECREATION", and the utter absence of effective safety or traffic regulation in most cases.

In the case of the three dead snowmobilers in Golden, for example - two fathers and their sons (one son survived) - they were high-marking - and they caused the avalanche. These are not people commuting to work or driving to a party in our car-dependent anti-green society.

Likewise, we have this - which happened yesterday, north-east of Rouyn, where a snowmobiler decided to jump an abutment, and in doing so killed two people in a passing snowmobile:

Fatal jump in snowmobile

There are few rules (depending on province), and no enforcement. There need to be far more.

Yes, I realized that, just pointing out that stupidity knows no bounds.

Perhaps we need to start putting regulations on back yard pools and lake side cottages long before tackling those nasty snow mobilers, given the reality that in any given year more people(read mainly children) drown, and  over a 100 times more at that, in Canada, than die from snow mobile related deaths?

I have no problem with that idea at all. I built a pool for my mother in Burlington in the early 1970s and as far as I can recall the only regulations in place were that the pool had to be surrounded by a fence at least four feet high. I put a chain link fence almost five feet high and actually exceeded the rules! And that was it. Fortunately the pool was only used by adults while she was there.

As for cottages, I have experience there as well - in the late 1960s my parents brought a cottage on the Rideau River I think near Manotick south of Ottawa - the place next door  had several very young children. We'd often drive out to the cottage and see their young children - unsupervised - jumping into the water off our dock. My parents sold the place shortly afterwards and that was the end of our cottage experience. We did buy a house on the Ottawa River not long after, though - in an area with mostly older families.

Some (Conservatives, certainly) might complain about the 'nanny state'. I say, bring it on.

Actually there are very severe regulations on pools, at least in Ontario.  Cottages not so much. 

I'm glad to hear pool regulations - at least in Ontario - have been beefed up.

Let there be none

Yup and dismantle the rescue groups. Let private enterprise take up that mantle. Like the Romans did with firefighting.

How about on a historical species level we re-learn basic rules of skill and self-determinaion Bacchus, in terms of recreation that is fairly entertwined with the logic of work which is problamatic in itself, I would like to see a day were we do not need top down rationalized rescue groups.

Unionist wants to nanny state things into even worse directions the they already are now.

That's me!

What about, "Thou shalt not kill", Mike? Does that pass muster? It would have saved 5 lives in the last two snowmobile stories mentioned above.

All my life I've been busy fighting rulers. Turns out I should have been fighting rules. Goddam typos...

You're really calling that killing unionist, was there a state of anxiety and fear leading up to this event, C'MON MAN.

See? He does believe in at least one rule, "Thou shalt not kill!" - he just doesn't think it applies in that case.

Gotcha!! - foiled by the rules [sic] of logic!!

The nanny state as I know it doesn't exclude learning basic and advanced survival skills! It's just that accidents happen, which can be so easily prevented or made less life-threatening with a modicum of rules to follow. 

Really? What kinda regulations?

Did ya read the opening post of this thread about how many drownings and water related accidents there are in ON every year?

Now that is killing on a much more significant scale than a hand full of snow mobile deaths each year, if we decide to go by unionist's, at best, overblown hyperbole and rhetoric.

Remind has a good point - if there's lots of pool regulations, why so many drownings?

A plethora of lakes, rivers, and waterways in ON + ten million people in this province = lots of drownings.  There's no way to regulate everybody's use of the wilderness.

State-side, they have brought in a system of fines, where people who put themselves in dangerous situations have to pay the cost of their rescue.  This wouldn't help reduce drownings, but if you've got people in BC high-marking up mountains heavy with snow, maybe the risk of a ruinous fine would act as a deterrent where merely endangering their lives doesn't seem to make a difference?

Most of them are not pool drownings. And for the ones that are, you can't regulate stupidity of the pool owners with their own kids, jsut other peoples ability to access it

Again....how about heavy fines for those 100's more swimming deaths per year? As people out here already have to pay for their own search and rescue and if they are dead their families have to.

Talking so blaise about the 100's more water deaths, or ignoring them completely, to target sledders who are mature adults as opposed to all the children drowning, is pretty damn interesting,  On numerous levels.

Why would  regulations only target mature adult snowmobilers? Regulations could help the children killed through reckless snowmobile usage as well.

And just how many of them are there? Children I mean, one got hurt snow mobiling last year in BC none killed. None the year before, or the year before that...throw up some stats and let us have a look...

It is mainly a sport of adult recreation., which is what my comment reflected.

But yet we have 100's of children drowning every year across Canada, but not a peep on what to do about that, or even an acknowlegement it is a very serious issue comparatively speaking to the handful of adults who die each year, doing something they love, undertaken by an informed and mature decision on their part. Which is also what my comments reflected.

And just how many of them are there? Children I mean, one got hurt snow mobiling last year in BC none killed. None the year before, or the year before that...throw up some stats and let us have a look...

It is mainly a sport of adult recreation., which is what my comment reflected.

But yet we have 100's of children drowning every year across Canada, but not a peep on what to do about that, or even an acknowlegement it is a very serious issue comparatively speaking to the handful of adults who die each year, doing something they love, undertaken by an informed and mature decision on their part. Which is also what my comments reflected.

Snowmobiles are a way of life here - but with the advent of high performance 4-cylinder machines, it's even more imperative that they be regulated - but I still see teenagers on high performance machines. But I had a high performance Mini Cooper when I was 18 in Ottawa in the 1960s, and that was allowed, as was my best friend who had a Triumph 650 Bonneville bike, so what can you do. ~sigh~

Remind speaks of a "handful of adults who die each year, doing something they love, undertaken by an informed and mature decision on their part."

Caissa thinks that these deaths occurring as a result of adults exercising their mature judgement makes them quite egregious. It is too bad that the price of bad judgement can be death.

In the two actual stories I cited from the last few days, snowmobilers made "decisions" (high-marking that started an avalanche, and jumping an abutment) that killed other people.

Such activities should be treated at the very least in a manner similar to driving while impaired, or dangerous driving, both of which are Criminal Code offences.

And I have little interest in making people pay for rescues. That's akin to a civil suit to recover damages. I'm talking about just making sure that our laws clearly label unacceptable behaviour, and that there is a safety and regulatory infrastructure in place to help protect the innocent victims, and not just the negligent or reckless.

I find it troubling that this view should be met by venom. But I'm used to it and have stocked up on antidote.

I agree, actually - but enforcement is a problem - this is a big country. Only once in my 16 years here have I seen Quebec police out on the snowmobile trails.

Wow. Someone should bring this to one of their funerals.

"Weep not for Bob! He CHOSE TO DIE UNDER A PILE OF SNOW. To his family I say only that while Bob loved you, he clearly loved DYING UNDER A PILE OF SNOW more, for that is what he chose. I'm sure it was not a decision entered into lightly, but know that his death was not for nothing! His high mark was the record for, like, almost a week! As you go through life alone now, take strength in the knowledge that between February 9 and February 14, 2011, nobody went higher up that hill than your husband and father!"

We should celebrate the courage of the brave men who are making an informed and mature decision! Why does everyone act like this is some kind of tragedy??

It is utterly impossible to enforce laws that don't exist.

But enforcement can take many forms. It doesn't need police in all instances. Our society should begin by criminalizing certain kinds of behaviour that recklessly endangers lives (especially lives of others - people who would like to carry on living). Even with no enforcement, that will have a salutary effect. A party of sledders heading out to high-mark in the back country may have one participant who says, "Hey, no thanks guys [it's almost always guys, isn't it?], but that's illegal." One life saved, maybe a couple more.

Long thread!