Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > "You're more likely to be killed by XXX than YYY" rant
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Schenk
Off Leash Man



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 2356 | TRs
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
  Top

Off Leash Man
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 1:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Is anyone else sick and tired of that common, over used, response to people's comments on wilderness hazards: "you're more likely to be killed in a car accident than by (insert favorite wilderness danger here) in the wilderness."

When was the last time 225.8 million people hiked 30+ miles a day in the wilderness, every day of the year?
Oh, never, not even one day.
As soon as the same number of people travel as many miles a day in the wilderness as people do driving on public roads then you can legitimately go back to making that comparison.

https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/american-driving-survey/

That said, I like bears. All of them. And lightning too.

--------------
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
BigBrunyon
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 907 | TRs
Location: the fitness gyms!!
BigBrunyon
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 1:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I consider myself to be pretty decent at the wheel. But my buddy Rick, it's borderline 50/50 every time getting in the car with a guy like that.

--------------
YOU NEVER KNOW!!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
olderthanIusedtobe
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 6970 | TRs
Location: Shoreline
olderthanIusedtobe
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 1:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You're much more likely to be killed by a domestic dog than a bear.  There, I did it too.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk
Off Leash Man



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 2356 | TRs
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
  Top

Off Leash Man
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 2:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
hahaha, yes, have fun with this if you can!
Here is one that is such a stunning revelation: You're more likely to die in town, than out of town.

--------------
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
olderthanIusedtobe
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 6970 | TRs
Location: Shoreline
olderthanIusedtobe
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 2:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yes, I understand your point about false equivalencies.  I think usually when people do it, it's a counter reaction to what comes off as fear mongering about things that "could" go wrong, but are extremely unlikely to.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk
Off Leash Man



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 2356 | TRs
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
  Top

Off Leash Man
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 3:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
yes, that is an astute observance of social behavior.
It seems that people go to extremes now to counter other extreme (or not so extreme) statements, positions, or actions.

Here is one more:
You're more likely to use a statistic disingenuously online, than in person

--------------
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
olderthanIusedtobe
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 6970 | TRs
Location: Shoreline
olderthanIusedtobe
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 4:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk wrote:
Here is one more:
You're more likely to use a statistic disingenuously online, than in person


smile.gif  I thought statistics were invented to be used disingenuously, whether in person or via other mediums.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 5576 | TRs
Location: What Verlot Forgot.
Chief Joseph
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 4:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You are more likely to die from suicide or domestic violence than Covid-19....but your death might be related to or be counted as from the virus. wink.gif

--------------
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bosterson
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2019
Posts: 134 | TRs
Location: Portland
Bosterson
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 5:26 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk wrote:
You're more likely to use a statistic disingenuously online, than in person

Studies have shown this is because 87% of people think they have a better than average understanding of statistics. wink.gif

--------------
Follow the river until it turns to ice. Follow the ice until it turns to rock. Follow the rock until it turns to sky. Then we will be there.
--Woodrow Wilson Sayre
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 1393 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 5:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk wrote:
Is anyone else sick and tired of that common, over used, response to people's comments on wilderness hazards: "you're more likely to be killed in a car accident than by (insert favorite wilderness danger here) in the wilderness."

No.  Throw in the most common ways to die in the wilderness--drowning and falling--and car culture is still more likely to get you in the end.  Whether quickly in an accident or slowly through inactivity and pollution.  Also what's wrong with trying to ease someone's irrational fears?

Schenk wrote:
When was the last time 225.8 million people hiked 30+ miles a day in the wilderness, every day of the year?

It would be more realistic to normalize to time, not distance.  What's more dangerous - an hour spent on the trail, or in the car?  (Not to mention what's more fun and life-affirming.)

That said, the right dose of fear can be a life saver.  As Andy Grove said, "only the paranoid survive".
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 5576 | TRs
Location: What Verlot Forgot.
Chief Joseph
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 6:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Plus, it's not really Paranoia if they really are out to get you!

--------------
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 391 | TRs
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 10:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I count 17 grizzly bear deaths in all of North America from 2010 to 2020.

Lets look just at Montana, which I believe has the most grizzlies of any state in the lower 48. From 2010 to 2020 there were 2 grizzly deaths. From 2000 to 2010, there was one grizzly death in Montana. In 2019, there were 184 motor vehicle deaths. I don't know how many deaths for the entire decade, but a good estimate would be 1840 deaths.

You would have to have more statistics to truly find out what is the more dangerous activity in Montana, driving or hiking in grizzly habitat. But vehicles kill approximately 1000 times as many people each decade in Montana as grizzlies do. So my guess is driving is the more dangerous activity.

The point being, people often have irrational fears of activities, particularly wildlife danger like bear attacks or shark attacks, when in fact, driving is probably the most dangerous activity people regularly engage in.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 4603 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
  Top

Faster than light
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 10:44 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's ok, I'm Canadian!
It's ok, I'm Canadian!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11363 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((>
PostWed Aug 19, 2020 10:44 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You are far more likely to die from drowning in your bathtub than from any "wilderness hazards".

You are far more likely to be killed by a toaster than from any "wilderness hazards".

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk
Off Leash Man



Joined: 16 Apr 2012
Posts: 2356 | TRs
Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain
Schenk
  Top

Off Leash Man
PostThu Aug 20, 2020 9:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I guess my point is that "statistical" comparisons between completely dissimilar hazards are generally useless and, yet, they are over used.
One reason they are invalid is because these comparisons do not take into account the subjective aspect of danger that can be mitigated by the individual.
For example: The Darwin Award recipients. Those people affirmatively disregard and do not exercise their control over dangerous situations.
Do their deaths/injuries reflect the behavior and experience of the majority? No, but they still contribute to the statistical data.
Same with drunk/impaired/distracted drivers. Take them out of the equation and driving becomes extremely safe, no matter how you look at it.

Now, to a person looking in from the sidelines it could be humorously interpreted that I simply want more people to be afraid to go into the mountains because of falling trees, lightning, rattlesnakes, rabid raccoons and coyotes, hail, hantavirus, hornets, hypothermia, and bears. Ah, but that would be selfish.
But it is true, the mountains are dangerous. The more time you spend in the mountains, the more likely you are to die there! Stay out of them! tongue.gif

--------------
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > "You're more likely to be killed by XXX than YYY" rant
  Happy Birthday Boots, WildCelticRose, tigermn, Gabep!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy