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

[Sibhusky]

I started my daughter skiing at 3 and gymastics at 5. Both sports you can get hurt in , especially things like ACL tears. At the age of 27 (?) She decided to add mountain biking, which in my mind has FAR higher potential for injury. But the life-long fitness and flexibility she has seemed to keep her in one piece, although well-bruised. You can get hurt walking down the sidewalk. She and my husband were walking in the woods and got attacked by a grizzly.

 

[François Pugh]

I started my daughter skiing at 3 and gymastics at 5. Both sports you can get hurt in , especially things like ACL tears. At the age of 27 (?) She decided to add mountain biking, which in my mind has FAR higher potential for injury. But the life-long fitness and flexibility she has seemed to keep her in one piece, although well-bruised. You can get hurt walking down the sidewalk. She and my husband were walking in the woods and got attacked by a grizzly.

Mountain biking has more potential for injury than skiing? Your not trying hard enough on the skis!

 

[François Pugh]

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 would certainly welcome and use such a map. Call me superstitious if you like, but if I see a lot of folk getting killed, maimed for life or suffering traumatic brain injury in a particular spot, I would avoid that spot, or at least be extra careful around it.

 

[dbostedo]

but if I see a lot of folk getting killed, maimed for life or suffering traumatic brain injury in a particular spot, I would avoid that spot, or at least be extra careful around it.

I doubt there's any one spot where injuries of that type occur with enough frequeny to be significant. I was thinking more along he lines of collisions, broken bones, twisted knees, etc. Same thing could apply... but overall, I think the map of "problem spots" would look an awful lot like the map of "busiest spots" and therefore not be very valuable.

 

[HardDaysNight]

...and did not realize how many people are killed and maimed skiing.

Fortunately one’s chances of being killed or maimed skiing are extremely low. Deaths are less than one in a million (and more than 80% are men) while injury rates, including minor ones, run at about two per 1,000 skier visits. Statistically speaking, you are 100 times more likely to die canoeing than you are skiing.

 

[François Pugh]

Fortunately one’s chances of being killed or maimed skiing are extremely low. Deaths are less than one in a million (and more than 80% are men) while injury rates, including minor ones, run at about two per 1,000 skier visits. Statistically speaking, you are 100 times more likely to die canoeing than you are skiing.

Those injury rates don't include my broken arm, my broken ribs, my schmucked (medical term) thumb, one of my broken wrists, two of my concussions, nor my broken arm. Not that my data makes much difference, but there's probably a lot of folk who don't bother with the drama show when they get a little boo boo.

 

[HardDaysNight]

Sure, any numbers wouldn’t include little boo boos that normal people don’t report. They wouldn’t include my broken ribs occasioned by being run into from behind by a liftie on a snowboard while distracted looking at her cell phone. Shit happens!

 

[skix]

Fortunately one’s chances of being killed or maimed skiing are extremely low. Deaths are less than one in a million (and more than 80% are men) while injury rates, including minor ones, run at about two per 1,000 skier visits. Statistically speaking, you are 100 times more likely to die canoeing than you are skiing.

Where could you possibly be getting the data to make those claims? I thought the whole point of this thread is that the ski areas don't make injury reports publicly available.

 

[pchewn]

I'm sure the insurance companies have this data in order to calculate premiums vs expected payouts.

 

[SkiMcP]

You can see the data Harddaysnight references at nsaa.org

 

[James]

So what’s the safety data on driving to the ski areas?
Bicycling?
I now know, not personally, 2 people killed on the road bicycling. One was active on Epicski, the other taught at an Epicski Academy. I do know someone who had her pelvis broken by being hit by a car cycling.

 

[raytseng]

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 agree that while a user may not affect change their mind and behavior while already at a single resort, it can change some user decisions when you consider how all resorts have to report would affect things.
But you never know if you have something until you have the data to play it out.

Beyond the single resort, maybe theres some secret sauce why there really are less injuries at 1 resort vs another that only comes out if the numbers are released and analyzed. Maybe the secret sauce is not obvious and not caused by management costcutting either. Even if the injuries are low or in line with other activities, unless the stats are truly zero, one can't claim there is no room for improvement.

more on the positive side, if the data is compared and they see how they stack up, it generates competition for resorts to compete to not be on the bottom.
For those that prefer thinking about it from a noncutthroat and collaborative perspective, maybe those at the top of the list will share or develop the missing practices with those at the bottom to work as an industry team to raise the industry as a whole. Or at least start the research to find out why and what works. Data will set you free.

Back to customer decisioning, Perhaps for example 1 resort has a learners area separated from the other lifts and that somehow affects the injury metrics.
Only those in the know might know this.

So for a new skifamily it may not change their decision to ski, but they may alter the resort they pick to ski based on the metrics or rankings, even if they don't know exactly why its better for beginners. (potentially substitute safer for better if it makes my example smoother).

Same reason why new parents pick a volvo because they top the safety car brand, even though all new cars meet and pass "safety" regulations.

I think we've seen in reality, anytime there is a ranking of anything it does nudge at least a portion of human behavior, even if all the resorts are above the minimum standard bar.
Even the smallest differentiation will affect decision making. Just even here, look at people trying to pick based on metrics the best ski, safest helmet, best google, best resort etc etc.

 

[skix]

So what’s the safety data on driving to the ski areas?
Bicycling?
I now know, not personally, 2 people killed on the road bicycling. One was active on Epicski, the other taught at an Epicski Academy. I do know someone who had her pelvis broken by being hit by a car cycling.

I don't think anyone is trying to say skiing is the most dangerous activity in the world. But then again maybe it is. Unlike automobile safety reporting of accidents involving injury is not required. We know cars are dangerous and we know the most dangerous roads and intersections. Which has led to increase use of roundabouts, removal of obstacles near roadways, median barriers, etcetera. Ski areas though won't let us have data so we can look for problems.

As I think about this more my hunch is that ski areas think the data would impact public behavior or they would release it. I don't see why I should give them the benefit of the doubt when they try so hard to keep injury data secret.

 

[pais alto]

Where could you possibly be getting the data to make those claims? I thought the whole point of this thread is that the ski areas don't make injury reports publicly available.

Oh, for goodness’ sake - Google “ski area accident rate”

And fwiw, when I worked as a patroller, over 13 years there were three accident deaths (not counting stroke and heart attack), all were collisions with trees, two were along blue runs, the other was in a relatively easy, though rated black, glade. There was no particular hotspot for leg, knee, shoulder, arm, head, etc. injuries. They happened all over, in many ways.

Skiing isn’t safe.

 

[skix]

For goodness’ sake - Google “ski area accident rate”

Respectfully, read the article linked in the post that started this thread. What the NSAA reports doesn't come close to matching Colorado Health reports. The ski industry as a source for accident statistics has a conflict of interest.

Details of injuries are not released by ski resorts. Many deaths go unreported as well. The National Ski Areas Association reports an average of 45 “catastrophic injuries” at all the country’s ski areas every season. Those resorts log about 55 million to 60 million visits a year, so the industry reports less than one major injury for every million skier visits. (The association defines catastrophic injuries as ““significant neurological trauma, major head injuries, spinal cord injuries resulting in full or partial paralysis and injuries resulting in the loss of a limb.”)

....

The CDPHE statistics identified 96 of 1,426 trauma admissions in 2017-18 that involved injuries defined as “severe” or “profound,” which is about 96 major injuries for every 127,000 skier visits in Colorado.

Some Colorado lawmakers want ski resorts to report injuries and fatalities

Etthan Mañon was ready to tackle the main run at Echo Mountain after skiing several laps on the beginner hill. The 18-year-old was with a bunch of family, in town from the Dominican Republic for the Christmas holidays and skiing for the first time in his life. “He was doing great. Controlled...

coloradosun.com

 

[pais alto]

@skix, I read that article. But you asked,

Where could you possibly be getting the data to make those claims? […]

The statistic was found in casual research.

While the actual number of serious injuries and deaths may be open to (vigorous) debate, there’s no doubt that skiing is a dangerous sport, and I put forth my experiences to try and give perspective about the location of serious incidents. ie. all over.

 

[SBrown]

I think the only useful information would be not "hot spots" of injury (agree that it can happen anywhere), but perhaps where collisions occur most. But that would be impossible to collect with accuracy, since they aren't all reported. Otherwise, if you can't figure out on your own that it might be dangerous to strap long boards to your feet and test gravity, then maybe you shouldn't be out there. As @Philpug said the other day, "Skiing is really stupid."

 

[skix]

Are we at the point where anyone who says these injuries should be reported is just a whiner and should just stop skiing? Seems that's the feedback here. I mean I've said I'm fine with these risks for myself and I do regularly launch myself off cornices and jumps so I'm not against risk. I do think though that the industry has circled the wagons and is acting like the auto and tobacco industries have in the past. It is just possible that by requiring transparency in reporting some improvements might be made.

 

[skix]

The writer of the story that started this thread has a followup article in the Colorado Sun:

Colorado ski areas aren’t talking about skier fatalities this season. So we asked coroners instead.


Story (author of safety bill) is not giving up on the push for more transparency in the resort industry. She understands the trepidation of a business built on fun having to detail the more dangerous side of those good times.

“But the reality is, with all that data pulled together for the state, maybe we could find other strategies that could be employed that could improve safety. That’s not a bad thing,” said Story, an avid skier. “Clearly the industry cannot mitigate all risk, but I bet there are different things ski areas could be doing that could help reduce injuries, deaths and the severity of injuries, and make a better experience for everyone on the mountain, including their own employees.”

Here is a list of deaths gleaned from the survey of county coroners. Over the past decades, the typical death at a Colorado ski resort involves a male skier or snowboarder on an intermediate or green run striking a tree at a high rate of speed. A majority of this season’s fatalities fit that scenario.

Colorado ski areas aren’t talking about skier fatalities this season. So we asked coroners instead.

At least 11 skiers were killed at Colorado ski areas during the 2020-2021 ski season, but ski resorts won't release that information.

coloradosun.com

 

[Seldomski]

I think we may have drifted a bit from the OP at this point ... I can just give my recent experience, which was nowhere near as severe as the story mentioned in the first post.

I broke my hand skiing at Breck 2 weeks ago. I got an x-ray at the base of quicksilver lift to confirm the injury. Smart?? to dedicate that valuable real estate to a clinic so close to the beginner area.

I told the clinic I broke it skiing. There were no follow up questions about 'what trail was this' or anything like that to have my injury help patrol mark runs if needed. I could overhear other people in the clinic. Clinic didn't care where injuries happened, they just wanted to treat the injuries and help the people.

In retrospect I should have called patrol and reported where I found thin cover and have them maybe mark the spot if appropriate with a pole or whatever to show a buried rock. A few days had passed since then and it would have been moot at that point - spring variable conditions and all. This idea of describing verbally where to go to find the mischievous rock sounds like a fools errand... so...

Anyway, it seemed like low hanging fruit for Vail to have someone in that clinic recording where these injuries happened and relaying the info to ski patrol to check conditions. Not everyone immediately calls patrol when something happens. Most I know will find a way to ski down in pain and get it checked later if it's still a problem.

Or maybe this has been tried in the past and it yields no useful data?