• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Initiative in Colorado to Require Ski Areas to Report Injuries / Death

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,095
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado
Perfect response. If there was public record of accidents and deaths the smart consumers - i.e., the ones who made appropriate life decisions, built wealth, own stupid expensive sports cars, and can afford to to servers and ski instructor in hundreds, would chose the safer hills. They did not become successful by taking uncalculated risks.

Ski areas could use that as a point of leverage, and craft their messaging accordingly. That is the customer everyone wants. Not the beater living in the truck in a parking lot. Will ski areas use that data? No. With the exception of a few notables, they are too wrapped up in how things have been done. They are not evolving, crafting the product and purchase experience to what the buying public has become accustomed to.

The one exception might be Jackson. Jerry Blann did an awesome job there.
The fear in all of this, I think (and as I brought up before in this thread), is not the reporting and data gathering, but what places do with the data, and possible unintended consequences. The extreme example is, what if, based on the data, the government (or, say, lobbiest parents) wanted a 15 MPH speed limit at all resorts? Or closure of some terrain that's currently open as just being too dangerous?

And of course I think a lot of resorts are hesitant to gather, or at least share, that kind of data for fear of that increasing their liability. But they may also fear dealing with a public/PR problem, even if they feel they are doing everything right.

The data in and of itself should be collected and people should be knowledgeable - but it could be easy for it to get out of hand, IMO.
 
Thread Starter
TS
martyg

martyg

Making fresh tracks
Industry Insider
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Posts
2,216
The fear in all of this, I think (and as I brought up before in this thread), is not the reporting and data gathering, but what places do with the data, and possible unintended consequences. The extreme example is, what if, based on the data, the government (or, say, lobbiest parents) wanted a 15 MPH speed limit at all resorts? Or closure of some terrain that's currently open as just being too dangerous?

And of course I think a lot of resorts are hesitant to gather, or at least share, that kind of data for fear of that increasing their liability. But they may also fear dealing with a public/PR problem, even if they feel they are doing everything right.

The data in and of itself should be collected and people should be knowledgeable - but it could be easy for it to get out of hand, IMO.

I hear your point. Question: are you in the industry? Active in the industry in CO? As evidenced of the vote count it should be apparent what kind of power the industry lobby wields. Other popular winter spirts states have a reporting protocol, and it hasn't,t hurt them.
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,095
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado
Other popular winter spirts states have a reporting protocol, and it hasn't,t hurt them.
That's a good point - do you have examples? I'd be curious to read up on it more.

And no, I'm not involved or that familiar with the industry lobby. Just pointing out why some folks and resorts may oppose it.
 

Cols714

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Posts
48
Location
Colorado
So the argument is that by reporting injuries and deaths at ski resorts is going to lead to 15 MPH speed limits while skiing? That is so dumb that I can't believe that people actually think it's going to happen.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Ski resorts in Colorado have almost no liability under Colorado law. So, it's not that.

Anyone ever wonder if it's more dangerous to ski at a resort with 1.6 million visits than one with the same acreage but half or a third of the visits?

Guess who doesn't want that question answered?
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,095
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado
So the argument is that by reporting injuries and deaths at ski resorts is going to lead to 15 MPH speed limits while skiing? That is so dumb that I can't believe that people actually think it's going to happen.
I'm not being literal... it's just an extreme example of the type of thing that could happen, that people tend to fear. There are a myriad of possible ways to increase safety that a lot of skiers would find objectionable.

Some people already complain about being asked to slow down by mountain personnel at some areas. (The Vail "yellow jackets" come to mind.)
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,615
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
I don't really understand why this would be a bad thing. If there are particularly dangerous areas of a ski resort then it would be good to know about it.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the bill requires more than just reporting accidents:
" The bill updates the "Ski Safety Act of 1979" by: ! Requiring each ski area to adopt and publish, in printed form and on the ski area's website, if any, a safety plan specifying the governance, management, and operational roles, responsibilities, and practices of the ski area to prevent accidents and reduce the frequency and severity of injuries; and......
...The bill makes any failure to create, maintain, and publish a safety plan or provide the required reports or data grounds for discipline by the passenger tramway safety board. "

I can see why ski areas don't want to add to their duties and responsibilities, and opportunities to suffer the consequences of being "disciplined".
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
Do I buy any of that? No. One example is that there sure seem to be alot of intermediate and young skiers killed at Keystone Resort. How many? I don't know. More than Arapahoe Basin just up the hill? I don't know. Would it be safer to take my daughters and grandchildren to Keystone or Arapahoe Basin? I have no idea because that information is secret.

If there were more intermediate and young skiers killed at Keystone than at Arapahoe, it's probably because there's more intermediate and young skiers at Keystone than at Arapahoe. Reporting just the injuries and deaths won't tell you which area is safer.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
5,775
Location
Denver, CO
If there were more intermediate and young skiers killed at Keystone than at Arapahoe, it's probably because there's more intermediate and young skiers at Keystone than at Arapahoe. Reporting just the injuries and deaths won't tell you which area is safer.

Exactly, its only one data point which without several others, like visitation numbers on the particular date each accident happened, open acreage on the day of each incident and snow conditions among others, its basically useless. We saw how the resorts kept all the numbers private under the pandemic due to them being trade secrets (they are to some degree) , that wont change.
 
Last edited:

skix

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Posts
399
Location
...
If there were more intermediate and young skiers killed at Keystone than at Arapahoe, it's probably because there's more intermediate and young skiers at Keystone than at Arapahoe. Reporting just the injuries and deaths won't tell you which area is safer.

Well sure. But that's nitpicking my statement.

Are you really arguing it's impossible to determine whether one area is safer than another? That data on accidents and injuries is useless? That the public has no right to collect data on injuries? If so then we completely disagree.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Reporting just the injuries and deaths won't tell you which area is safer.
I agree with your sentiment. That doesn't change the value of the proposed law.

Ski areas are certainly free to provide whatever context they like around the data, including visitation numbers and demographics. Or not, if they want to keep it proprietary.
 

dan ross

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Posts
1,287
Yup, while we’re at it we should get rid of chairlifts. For safety sake.
As someone who has witnessed a chairlift accident up close, let me tell you it’s not something you ever forget. People I knew were hurt , none badly but others were seriously injured . I watched people thrown out like rag dolls as the lift rolled backwards and around the bull wheel . Others fell out before.they got to the wheel. The screaming... I still remember it. I was 15 and not sure what to do but I assisted the patrol as best I could. I’ve ridden chairlifts thousands of times since then without incident but I am aware of how much trust we put in ski area maintenance for our enjoyment and our safety.
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
Well sure. But that's nitpicking my statement.

Are you really arguing it's impossible to determine whether one area is safer than another? That data on accidents and injuries is useless? That the public has no right to collect data on injuries? If so then we completely disagree.
No, I am not arguing any of that. I'm just pointing out that the law to require ski areas to report injuries and deaths will not provide enough info to determine which areas are safer than others.

I agree with your sentiment. That doesn't change the value of the proposed law.

Ski areas are certainly free to provide whatever context they like around the data, including visitation numbers and demographics. Or not, if they want to keep it proprietary.

The value of the proposed law would be greater if it required other data also to be reported. Like injuries per skier-day, or deaths per skier-day.
 

skix

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Posts
399
Location
...
If it only required deaths per skier day and location of said deaths, not only would it be better, it would have a better chance of passing - no guarantee that it would pass though.

I'm jaded enough that I don't think any new ski safety bill has much chance to pass in Colorado. The current bill didn't even make it out of committee and was easily defeated.

Forgetting law for the moment I think it would be very valuable to have each injury and death located precisely with global coordinates. That way maps could be created that could show you runs and even bad places in runs where people keep getting hurt. If the data was available I can see it being pretty straightforward to write an app that would make researching the safety of a resort more doable. What is available on resort and trail safety now though is nearly non-existent.
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,095
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado
I can see it being pretty straightforward to write an app that would make researching the safety of a resort more doable
At that granular level, I'd think the more valuable usage would be for the resorts themselves to perhaps change things like grooming, snow making, signage, or open/close decisions, if there was a problem area.

IMO, I can't see a lot of users/skiers actually wanting/using that granular data in practice, versus having the resort apply it well. (Like "I have to remember to avoid the left side of that one, are the area around that tree on that other run since they've had the most incidents".) Surely there will be some, but I'm not sure the market for that data is that big.
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
At that granular level, I'd think the more valuable usage would be for the resorts themselves to perhaps change things like grooming, snow making, signage, or open/close decisions, if there was a problem area.

IMO, I can't see a lot of users/skiers actually wanting/using that granular data in practice, versus having the resort apply it well. (Like "I have to remember to avoid the left side of that one, are the area around that tree on that other run since they've had the most incidents".) Surely there will be some, but I'm not sure the market for that data is that big.

I can see the opposite effect also: "Dude, I just skied The Decapitator at Supergnar. It was awesome. That's rated the most dangerous run in all of N. America. Yep, I shredded it."

Which would lead even more people to the area of interest, leading to more traffic, more injuries ........
 

skix

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Posts
399
Location
...
At that granular level, I'd think the more valuable usage would be for the resorts themselves to perhaps change things like grooming, snow making, signage, or open/close decisions, if there was a problem area.

IMO, I can't see a lot of users/skiers actually wanting/using that granular data in practice, versus having the resort apply it well. (Like "I have to remember to avoid the left side of that one, are the area around that tree on that other run since they've had the most incidents".) Surely there will be some, but I'm not sure the market for that data is that big.

I can see the opposite effect also: "Dude, I just skied The Decapitator at Supergnar. It was awesome. That's rated the most dangerous run in all of N. America. Yep, I shredded it."

Which would lead even more people to the area of interest, leading to more traffic, more injuries ........

After reading this thread and the failure of the law to even get out of committee I've given up on the idea there's a way to make ski areas safer by public disclosure of accidents and injuries. I'd be surprised if Colorado passed another safety law in my lifetime. Ski areas will never give up that data willingly and they clearly have many skiers who agree with that stance.

Truthfully, even though they love it, I've regretted introducing my daughters to the sport ever since one blew out a knee and both of them decided they love icy trails through the trees. I mean if you want danger and excitement in the mountains you can do it much much cheaper than skiing without the illusion that a profit-making corporation has put your safety above their profits. If the pandemic has proved anything it's that uncountable numbers of politicians and business owners are willing to sacrifice some customers to keep the money flowing. Of course they aren't all like that but it's not possible to tell which is which.
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,095
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado
...both of them decided they love icy trails through the trees...
Two thoughts come to mind...

1) Let's take that as an example case, if you don't mind... what do you think having the data will do to help you or your daughters in that situation?

2) Regretting taking up a sport because someone got hurt doesn't make sense to me... I have been hurt (to the point of crutches and knee immobilizers - though never surgery thankfully) playing several sports... but never skiing. The injury rates - particularly knee injury rates - for girls in soccer and basketball are likely higher than in skiing. Would you feel the same if your daughter had blown out her knee playing basketball, and wished you'd never introduced her to it? Or did you think of skiing as dangerous to begin with, and the injury reinforced your preconceived notion? Or someting else?
 

skix

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Posts
399
Location
...
Two thoughts come to mind...

1) Let's take that as an example case, if you don't mind... what do you think having the data will do to help you or your daughters in that situation?

2) Regretting taking up a sport because someone got hurt doesn't make sense to me... I have been hurt (to the point of crutches and knee immobilizers - though never surgery thankfully) playing several sports... but never skiing. The injury rates - particularly knee injury rates - for girls in soccer and basketball are likely higher than in skiing. Would you feel the same if your daughter had blown out her knee playing basketball, and wished you'd never introduced her to it? Or did you think of skiing as dangerous to begin with, and the injury reinforced your preconceived notion? Or someting else?

When I first took them skiing I only had 30 ski days lifetime and did not realize how many people are killed and maimed skiing. I'd never heard of tree wells. I didn't realize how many people are hurt in collisions. I was clueless. Which I now realize is by design.

Regarding other sports of course there are injuries but you don't risk death on the soccer field. You don't have to worry your children are dead when they play basketball like you do when they take 10 minutes too long to finish a run.

While I am willing to risk that myself I don't think introducing my teenage daughters to a geographically distant, dangerous, expensive sport was in their best interests. I haven't yet and have no plans to take my grandchildren skiing either. Their parents aren't the skiers so that will keep them off the slopes. There are lots of other great sports where you don't risk death every time you participate.

My negativity at the moment though has no doubt been deepened by seeing how society has reacted to the pandemic. So many corporate and political leaders are more worried about keeping dollars flowing than they are about keeping people healthy. There are very few corps or government institutions I trust to tell me the truth about risk. The secrecy of the ski resorts is just the icing on the cake.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Andy Mink
    Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Top