‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

The rules and reasoning seem weak. Rule #1 (be prepared) seems fine. Rule #2 (be respectful) Seems to blur the distinction between respecting the danger and respecting your impact on the environment. You should of course do the latter, but not because you will be less likely to get hurt. Rule #3 (trust the statistics) I don't know what they're trying to get at, if there were fewer than 8 deaths per 10 million visits that would imply that it's a safe activity. They completely incorrectly say that the majority of deaths are men aged 55-64, when in fact that's just the largest group (we assume, the original report treats gender and age separately, but only 19% of deaths are in that age group). Even the source page mislabels the graph for this one.

Overall I just would have rewritten or cut out the end. It was what I thought was an interesting discussion on human actions but then it turned into something prescriptive with weak reasoning.

The statistics the article draws from: https://www.psbr.law/nevada/deaths-in-us-national-parks/

There was also a stainless fryer on the counter, but insulated with plastic legs, so I did some experimenting by completing the circuit a few ways:

- Counter to rail: weak shock

- Counter to fryer: stronger shock

- Fryer to rail: nothing

I reasoned that the rail and fryer were both grounded, the fryer more so because the metal exterior was wired directly to the ground pin in a 3-prong electrical plug. The problem was the counter.

I was pretty stoked: as a lowly ski lodge porter / custodian I'd diagnosed an electrical fault in the cafeteria! Everyone working there was way above my pay grade, but I got the manager's attention and excitedly explained my three experiments. The manager looked annoyed, confirmed that touching the counter and fryer gave a shock, and then unplugged the fryer (thus removing the ground) and went on with the day. As far as I know the counter remained electrified for the rest of the season, or longer.

I'm amazed more people don't get electrocuted.

But everyone I encountered in risk sports knew the difference between "smart crazy" vs "dumb crazy".

It is the difference between using knowledge, skill, technology, and mental focus to reduce risk to manageable levels, vs "getting away with it".

Getting away with it, riding on PDL — Pure Dumb Luck — can work for a long time. Until it doesn't, and you're dead. Like those YouTube idiots in the article. Getting away with it is just Russian Roulette with a different name and method.

Yet by using knowledge, skill, technology, and mental focus, people can live entire careers in situations that would reliably kill us in seconds, everythign from mountaineering, deep underwater, aviation, space, racecar driving, and more. Understand the risks, the skills to avoid them, the technology to minimize them, and pay attention, and you'll likely be rewarded with a lifetime of risky and rewarding adventures.

Read the books, take the lessons, get some good coaching and apprenticing, and don't cheap out on good gear (as they say, if you've got only a $10 head, then fine, get a $10 helmet, otherwise...). Also, listen to your body and the surroundings. If the conditions or your body is off, you don't have to TODAY climb that route, do that dive, whatever; you can do it or another one tomorrow.

It is no less joy to be wise about it!