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

[SBrown]

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?

As a counterpoint, I'm pretty sure the patch of rocks where @SkiNurse broke her liver has been roped off by Snowmass since that day. At least it has been every time I've been past there (which is not a scientific data point, of course). I witnessed a crazy accident at Copper earlier this season where there is now more fencing and signage, and I was told that they groomed down the lip at the edge of the run (where the skier became airborne) the very next day. I don't know if they have continued doing so. That said, these were much more serious injuries than a broken hand.

 

[François Pugh]

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

I see by the above that the goal is to find a way to make the ski industry do something to make skiing safer.

“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.”

I also see a link to striking a tree at a high rate of speed. I clicked on the link, but got frustrated trying to read the article without being spammed.

What concerns me is what might end up being the "something". Speed limits and ban ski tree skiing? Who knows how far they will go?

 

[HardDaysNight]

Given the cluelessness and incompetence of the huge numbers of gapers at PCMR I’m surprised more of them don’t kill themselves. New promotion: Skiing - It’s Safer than it Seems!

 

[SBrown]

Given the cluelessness and incompetence of the huge numbers of gapers at PCMR I’m surprised more of them don’t kill themselves. New promotion: Skiing - It’s Safer than it Seems!

I would like this 100 times if I could.

 

[mikel]

I witnessed a crazy accident at Copper earlier this season where there is now more fencing and signage, and I was told that they groomed down the lip at the edge of the run (where the skier became airborne) the very next day. I don't know if they have continued doing so. That said, these were much more serious injuries than a broken hand.

Was it close to a lift?

 

[SBrown]

Was it close to a lift?

Under American Flyer. Well, under and then into American Flyer ....

 

[mikel]

Yep, thought that was the one you were talking about. Must have been crazy seeing it happen.

 

[sparty]

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.

Well, part of the reason is that non-stories don't generate clicks and sell eyeballs to advertisers. The headline wouldn't be "Skiing is 85% safer than taking a shower"; it would be "Twice as many injured annually in ski crashes as in bocce incidents" (with apologies to bocce, as I have no idea if it's safer or more dangerous; I strongly suspect more people are injured in and around showers than in ski crashes on an annual basis, but probably not when adjusted for exposure).

And while I agree that in theory the data could be useful in comparing risk-management strategies, I strongly suspect that's already happening. Data on all incidents to which patrol responds does get recorded and reported to insurance carriers, and there aren't that many of them serving the ski industry. Those insurance carriers have a vested interest in risk mitigation and management, and they will make sure that their customers are financially incentivized to do so. Risk management is also a regular topic of discussion at ski-area management conferences and in SAM; as much as ski areas don't want inherent risks trumpeted from the rooftops, they also don't want injured (or worse) customers, or the liability that comes along with that.

 

[James]

Are we at the point where anyone who says these injuries should be reported is just a whiner and should just stop skiing?

No, but the direction of the article from the beginning was blatantly designed to elicit some sort of sympathy and outrage reaction that they wanted.
You could write some piece where a father puts his son on rollerblades for the first time. Instead of a driveway, he brings the kid to a public street on a hill. Things go badly, and even for that, there’s a freak accident and the child is killed. The father tells the reporter “he had no idea” things like that happened.

That’s essentially the piece he opened with on snow.