Recreational sports deaths part 3

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...

Jingles wrote:

Workplace safety and an individual's recreational habits are not comparable. In the latter's case, death or injury [i]does[/i] often come down to "blame the individual".

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.

jas wrote:

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?

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, [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/999385/%C2%A0Its-not-really-subject][color=... replied[/color][/url]:

Quote:

It's not really a subject one can take seriously. Sorry.

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

Here are some non-daredevilish cyclists in Amsterdam: http://amsterdamize.com/ and Copenhagen: www.copenhagencyclechic.com 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.

jas wrote:

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.

Unionist wrote:

It would be inconsistent of me to worry about human health and safety, and risk management, in the workplace, but not in the rest of society. So, I worry about these things. And where I have no experience and knowledge, I ask others for answers.

My workplace experience has taught me that of all possible answers and solutions, there are two which I should distrust reflexively and ask for proof:

1. Blame the individual; and

2. Denial of the problem.

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.

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.

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.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

He told me he has taken his skidoo into those very places where people have been killed.

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

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...).

[url=http://www.avalanche.ca/Default.aspx?DN=ac60b29a-6eaa-40a2-8ea9-37313856...'s the preliminary report[/url] into last week's slide:

Quote:

The trigger mechanism remains unconfirmed, but eyewitnesses report snowmobiles were highmarking on the slope at the time of the avalanche. We feel it is safe to assume this avalanche was human triggered by snowmobiling activities.

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.

Why do we have threads on anything?

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 [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/a-mothers-... report[/url] that they may be getting ready to charge some duffuses for putting their children's lives in danger:

Quote:

When Sharlotte Skowronek picked up the phone, she braced for more bad news. Was it the hospital calling to tell her that her husband, Joey, had died from injuries suffered in the avalanche? It wasn’t. It was an investigator from the major crime division of the Kelowna RCMP. He asked Ms. Skowronek how her husband was doing. But he mostly wanted to talk about something else: child endangerment.

“What I picked up from the conversation was they are considering charging parents who took their kids to the event with endangering their child,” Ms. Skowronek said this week.

“He wanted to know how I would feel about child endangerment charges if my husband survives.” And she said they wanted to let her know that the co-ordinators of the snowmobile event may face charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The inspector also said police would want to interview the couple’s seven-year-old son, Joey Jr., who was on Boulder Mountain with his dad when the avalanche struck. Police have not yet determined how many children were among the estimated 200 people who came to Revelstoke last Saturday to watch snowmobiling daredevils traverse high up the mountain as part of a loosely structured event called the Big Iron Shootout.

[b]RCMP Corporal Dan Moskaluk confirmed in an interview that “all aspects of this event are being investigated, and one of those aspects is parents bringing their children.[/b]

[b]“As an adult, we are responsible for ourselves, but then, as well at times, child protection and child care does become an issue for governing bodies to ensure that children are safe,” he said.[/b]

Cpl. Moskaluk confirmed that investigators would likely want to talk to children who were there when a pair of snowmobilers racing up the mountain triggered the slide. The risk of avalanche in the area was rated high at the time.

“Everything is on the table, and that would include provincial legislation that applies,” he said. “And seeing that we have information about children being there, it’s conceivable and safe to say that we would be looking at [any laws or statutes] that apply to that as well.”

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...

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.

remind wrote:

Strangers at risk?

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

Quote:

I stop at children being endangered when they do not know what the risk is to themselves...

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.

Quote:

.. 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.

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".

jas wrote:

If laws are what you were looking for, Unionist, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Gee, jas, this is part 3 of these threads. I've been calling for laws since the minute the discussion started. This was [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/recreational-snowmobilers-are-dyin... 18, 2009[/url]:

Unionist wrote:

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.

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

jas wrote:

You mean making it illegal to drive past the warning signs? That might work, but what purpose would it serve the state? I understand that search and rescue costs are charged to the victim or his/her estate. I guess governments could at least save some medical costs that might otherwise be spent trying to save the lives of these chronic risk-takers.

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 [b]already existing[/b] 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.