[HN Gopher] 'That girl is going to get herself killed'
___________________________________________________________________
'That girl is going to get herself killed'
Author : mooreds
Score : 215 points
Date : 2023-01-09 13:18 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (longreads.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (longreads.com)
| fallingfrog wrote:
| My friend's brother in law was a river guide- 25 years old, arms
| like tree trunks, wearing his life jacket and helmet, and with
| years of experience. Drowned anyway while kayaking one summer
| afternoon. It was a terrible loss, he was a wonderful person.
| Rivers are dangerous.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Risk can be fun. I don't feel bad if someone gets hurt or killed
| doing an activity that is inherently dangerous. They died doing
| what they enjoyed and feeling alive. Don't feel bad for me if I
| go that way either.
| ip26 wrote:
| In many incidents, people are completely misinformed on the
| degree of risk, or woefully unprepared, which does strike me as
| tragic. E.g. happy family who takes a pleasant hike a few miles
| from the car, except they weren't thinking about the fact it
| was August in Utah and they only brought 8oz of water.
|
| It's also evident in her story about getting caught by the
| river. She thought, _I'm not going to do anything crazy like
| those climbers_ - and then did something that seemed innocent
| but was actually far more dangerous.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I think she had fair warning. The story states that the
| ranger told her that statistically one of them would die that
| summer. Sure they didn't enumerate all the possible dangers,
| but who could? It's a wilderness or near wilderness setting
| with innumerable risks and scenarios.
|
| Simply saying it's so dangerous that one of you should die
| this summer should be sufficient for someone to then do their
| own research and take precautions given that the total risks
| of the area can't be covered.
| ip26 wrote:
| She was young and assumed it was the mountain climbers who
| were at risk. Is that her own fault? Yes. Would it still be
| tragic if youthful hubris & ignorance took her life in a
| senseless accident? Also yes.
| antipotoad wrote:
| I do feel bad when it seems needless. Lost a good friend to an
| avalanche in an avalanche-prone area, in dangerous conditions
| (weak layer in the snow from earlier in the season, big wet
| dump on top, turns into a slab slide so easily). He could and
| should have known better. He's at peace now, as are those of us
| left behind. I just miss my friend.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I think it's basically an "informed consent" thing. If people
| are clearly informed and consciously aware of the risk, that's
| completely up to them (eg. free solo climbers).
|
| Where it gets tricky, in my opinion is:
|
| - we aren't convinced the person is currently capable of making
| rational decisions
|
| - we aren't convinced the person is fully informed and equipped
| with an intimate understanding of the risk they're undertaking
|
| I think both of these cases are about wanting what's best for
| the individual, but struggling with the balance of support vs.
| control.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm not sure how we could enumerate all the possible risks in
| a wilderness or near wilderness setting.
| TheCleric wrote:
| You don't have to enumerate, just acknowledge. Some people
| think trying to get a selfie with a buffalo is a good idea.
| You don't have to tell them all the was it could end badly,
| just that it likely will. Same for the person hiking
| something like Zion. They should be prepared for any
| relatively expected contingency, and if they don't know
| what those are, they are unprepared to do so.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The picture thing is such a small part. You'd have to
| also do that for everything else - bear
| defense/prevention, hot springs, numerous injuries, etc.
| And you'll still have people who go "I was trying to take
| a picture with an elk, not a buffalo!".
| michaelt wrote:
| No, but you can know that A people out of 100,000 have died
| doing B making it less dangerous than C, more dangerous
| than D and 100x as dangerous as E and so on.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That might actually false confidence. For example, some
| activities might be comprised of more skilled people
| driving down the fatality rate. But another activity
| might have fewer or more manageable risks for unskilled
| people but have a higher fatality rate because more
| unskilled people do them.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Very relevant XKCD:
|
| https://xkcd.com/795/
| toss1 wrote:
| Yes, risk can be fun.
|
| 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!
| antipotoad wrote:
| Thank you for this. Calculating risks and knowing when to
| turn back is what keeps my wingsuiting squirrel of a
| childhood best friend alive to this day, after more than 2000
| flights.
| toss1 wrote:
| Wow, good for him/her! That is something I haven't yet
| gotten to do and would love to. May they live long and
| enjoyably!
| giantg2 wrote:
| In my experience, some people operate on PDL because they
| never learned about risk in general, or are incapable of
| operating differently.
|
| If you get hurt as a kid in a lower stakes fashion, you start
| to learn that breaking the rules hurts. That opportunity for
| lower stakes learning might be shrinking as we legislate away
| some "risky" stuff.
|
| Some people simply can't handle the "constraints" of being
| responsible... like my wife. Her favorite quote is "I just
| want to live life". No thoughts to "what if?" or being
| prepared. If some stranger held the same beliefs and died, I
| still wouldn't feel bad - that's the way they chose to live
| thier life.
| toss1 wrote:
| >>operate on PDL because they never learned about risk in
| general
|
| Yup, humans are generally awful at understanding and
| managing risk, and it is in no small part because there is
| almost anti-training about risk outside of high-risk
| activities, and even some of those are very low on guidance
| and high on PDL.
|
| >> I still wouldn't feel bad - that's the way they chose to
| live thier life.
|
| True, 'tho I feel like it is my better to not die soon-ish
| doing what I love, but enjoy many decades of doing what I
| love; doing it a little smarter and sometimes not quite at
| Warp-9 every second, so I can do more Warp-9 seconds later.
|
| I used to be an alpine ski racer, downhill my best event.
| At one national championship, the lower half of the race
| course was pretty flat and the race organizers decided to
| spice up one of the drop-offs with a bigger jump, building
| an illegal ramp before the drop-off (the FIS rules for
| Downhill stated that features cannot be sloped up before
| the racers leave the ground, level or down-slope only). I
| decided I had the knowledge I needed without pushing it on
| that feature in training so shed some speed every training
| run. For the several days of training runs before the race,
| every afternoon we were visiting friends in the hospital
| with fairly serious injuries from that feature (one back
| injury never raced again and never fully recovered). By
| race day, they'd decided to make it legal and shaved off
| the ramp. I have never felt that I missed out on anything
| by being aggressive on the top and skipping the Warp-9
| attitude there...
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >Yup, humans are generally awful at understanding and
| managing risk,
|
| Normal humans are normal at understanding and managing
| risk because normal is defined by typical human behavior.
|
| It is your expectations that deviate from the norm.
|
| (the above applies to pretty much all "people suck" type
| gripes)
| toss1 wrote:
| Interesting point; I'm not sure if we agree or not.
|
| While I've been very fortunate to have been able to
| pursue and get training in a variety of activities
| considered high-risk, I'm amazed at how often it applies
| to ordinary situations. Plus, an awful lot of ordinary
| life is much higher-risk than people think.
|
| We don't need extensive experience in sports or
| motorsports to understand that the difference between
| wearing a helmet or not in even a stupid little fall
| where your head hits something hard is the difference
| between "damn, I scratched my helmet" and your family
| organizing your funeral. This applies to everyone, and
| yet it is only this generation that is normalizing
| wearing helmets on bicycles, etc., and people still
| vociferously fight motorcycle helmet laws despite
| mountains of statistics of higher severe injury and death
| rates among non-helmeted motorcyclists vs. people who
| wear gear.
|
| While it is ordinary for most people to not only not
| understand epidemiology and statistics, a significant
| portion also willfully ignore the advice of those who do.
| Just because this significant portion exists, should we
| no longer expect people to either understand something or
| at least respect those who do?
|
| Most particularly, humans are obviously capable of
| understanding the difference between getting away with
| relying on Pure Dumb Luck vs applying knowledge, skill,
| technology, and attention to managing risk.
|
| Yet, just as obviously, MOST people haven't got a clue
| and consistently engage in foolish risks, and get injured
| or dead as a result, whether we're talking about YouTube
| idiots, people going to COVID parties, or in massive
| drinking binges, and nevermind understanding anything
| about engineering risk building bridges, aircraft, or
| whatever.
|
| It seems an obvious line to draw at understanding risk
| between using skill/knowledge/tech/attention vs using
| Pure Dumb Luck that the latter suck at risk management,
| and objectively most people are in the latter group.
| Moreover, I'd say more people are in this latter group,
| and the consequences are more serious, than in other
| fields, such as saying "most people suck at proper
| grammar".
|
| What am I missing?
| [deleted]
| gernb wrote:
| I feel like the phrase "you only regret what you didn't do" is
| survivorship bias. I'm pretty confident the majority of the
| people that die in these situations were not happy to die.
| TheCleric wrote:
| Whoever says that must not have anxiety of any form. I regret
| things I've done that didn't even endanger anyone's life.
| wcarron wrote:
| I would like to say that I'm generally a pretty experienced
| outdoorsman. I camp, hike, backpack, snowshoe, boulder,sport
| climb, used to snowboard extensively and do whitewater rafting.
| I've summitted Mt. Washington, NH in late October, done plenty of
| hikes from Death Valley and the Mojave to Sequoia NP, to the
| bright angel trail, etc. Enough to say I've got some experience,
| and done my fair share of risky stuff.
|
| Most people really should not be in the wilderness. It sounds
| elitist, but truthfully, the vast majority of people are unable
| to handle themselves in nature. They can't navigate using a map &
| compass, they get too close to wildlife and feed them, they don't
| adequately store their food in animal-resistant containers, don't
| understand how to treat water and deal with small medical issues,
| don't understand FIRE RISKS, how to manage fires and simply how
| to not have fires. They trample off trail and destroy flora. They
| don't carry first-aid or basic survival kits. They carry
| inadequate gear. I could go on and on. Most people do not belong
| in nature.
|
| There are so many facets of safety and competence that go into
| safely exploring the wild, it's impossible to enumerate them
| here. Stuff like climate, rockfall risk, relative isolation,
| tempurature changes between day/night, wind, animal risks, etc.
| Knowing where you're going, how long it'll take, having a backup
| plan, leaving an itinerary with a trusted person, knowing the
| profile & route of your travel, knowing what's likely to go
| wrong, understanding the danger of drinking untreated water,
| checking sources to see what potential issues have or may arise
| commonly, being able to tell direction based on the sun & stars.
| These are all basic skills of outdoorsmanship that most people do
| not have.
|
| Sadly, these are mostly types of common sense. The lack thereof
| is the real issue, not ones experience level. Don't be a dumbass,
| and you'll probably get out just fine aka: Play stupid games, win
| stupid prizes. The other real issue is people not knowing when to
| suck it up and retreat. Knowing your limits and when to call it
| quits is more important even than being prepared. One can be a
| dumbass or unprepared up to a certain point; but beyond that
| point, there are very real consequences. Knowing when to back out
| is, in some senses, even more important than being prepared.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Drowning is the leading cause of death in national parks and
| recreation areas. It's scary how powerful water is.
| have_faith wrote:
| A great example of this just down the road from me is The
| Strid: https://the-yorkshireman.com/the-strid/ (ignore the
| hyperbole title)
|
| Looks entirely harmless but is incredibly dangerous in some
| parts. Apparently the river "turns on it's side" creating a
| narrow but very deep stream with very fast underwater currents.
| orobinson wrote:
| There was a good discussion about this a few months ago
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32933603
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| This is one of those lies right up there with "the box cutter
| and the step stool are the most dangerous tools"
|
| Frequency/exposure matters. A lot of people swim. Not a lot of
| people choose the more extreme hike that's borderline on rock
| climbing.
|
| The danger of the typical or average swim is basically nil.
| Worrying about it other than just knowing there's baseline
| danger (that you can amplify by poor decisions if you choose
| to, but same goes for everything in life).
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| It's more obvious how a cliff is dangerous versus a seemingly
| calm body of water. Thus people are less wary about water,
| and more people die that way.
|
| It's not a lie, because the results are the results. And
| spreading awareness of the outcomes is about reducing the
| exposure that you mentioned, especially amongst the
| unprepared/unskilled.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Force in numbers.
|
| It's powerful because there's _a lot_ of it.
|
| Also it's deceptive as hell. See all the stories here about
| strange pockets of rivers that almost killed people, or the
| author's own note about the 252 degree hot pockets in
| Yellowstone Lake with an average survival time of 20 minutes.
|
| I think when people see water they're tempted to think it's a
| nice pool or a lazy river to enjoy - when really it's most
| likely a death trap.
| FlyingSnake wrote:
| Most people don't understand how woefully unprepared modern
| humans are for nature.
|
| I've lost friends to drowning in calm looking waters where they
| got trapped in hidden potholes in river bed.
|
| Water bodies are no joke.
| User23 wrote:
| Winter Storm Elliott was a good reminder that even in urban areas
| sometimes nature is going to make a solid effort to kill you.
| Nature deserves our respect, and everyone should do some basic
| preparation for the potential hazards where they live.
|
| How many people have road flares in their car? Or blankets? Or
| some sort of emergency heat source? These things don't take up
| much space, are cheap to acquire, and easy to maintain. They can
| save your life or someone else's.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _Or some sort of emergency heat source?_
|
| Any automobile with adequate fuel is a fine source of heat. As
| long as you're not parked inside.
| User23 wrote:
| The engine is your primary heat source. Your primary heat
| source failing is the emergency. Thus the need for an
| emergency source as a backup. Or at least a bivy sack or some
| other way to not freeze.
| dang wrote:
| Related ongoing thread:
|
| _An analysis of deaths in U.S. national parks_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34316529 - Jan 2023 (5
| comments)
| nadakandil wrote:
| [dead]
| oldstrangers wrote:
| It's impressive how quickly things can go south. Camping in
| Gunnison National Park a year or two ago when a severe snowstorm
| blew in that we had zero warning of. Went from sunny and fairly
| warm to a foot of snow and 10 degree weather over night. We did
| not have the equipment nor the experience for that kind of cold,
| and while the first night was ok, it was the next night when the
| ground froze beneath us that we realized how dangerous this
| really was. I woke up that night with only what I can assume was
| mild hypothermia. Couldn't get warm, heart beating like crazy and
| I kept throwing up.
|
| Ended up having to sleep in the car, and even that really wasn't
| enough to stay warm without having to turn the car on every few
| hours. Roads were frozen and impassable so if anything had really
| gone south, we'd have been screwed.
|
| Since then we obviously educated ourselves a lot and improved our
| winter camping gear and now we actively seek out cold weather
| camping.
|
| You can see some photos here: https://roambyland.com/colorado-
| winters-sawpit-telluride-gun...
| angst_ridden wrote:
| A lot of folks don't appreciate how quickly normal can turn into
| dangerous in the wilderness. Because most of the time, it's all
| so tame. With our specialized gear and tech, there's not much
| threat ... most of the time.
|
| I've been on mountain peaks on nice summer days when storms
| appear as out of nowhere (not the typical afternoon rains), and
| there's lightning, high winds, and 50oF temperature swings. In
| that kind of situation, things can turn very dangerous very
| quickly. Stuff that you take for granted suddenly isn't true any
| more: some rock which is rough and gives great traction suddenly
| gets slippery, winds that come from a prevailing direction
| suddenly come from somewhere else and the formerly sheltered
| areas aren't any more, clouds and fogs may come in and visibility
| may drop to zero.
|
| A common trap is slot canyons in the southwest desert in the
| summer, when it's hot and dry, and hikers don't know about the
| rains in the distant mountains.
|
| It's easy to turn your back on the ocean, which isn't forgiving.
| Large waves can happen when least expected.
| switchbak wrote:
| "It's easy to turn your back on the ocean" - this almost
| deserves its own category. Other/shipping traffic, waves,
| weather, lightning (especially risky on a sailboat!),
| hypothermia ... there's just very little margin for error in
| some situations, and those concerns can so easily compound.
|
| I've done some crazy things in my life, but it's always been
| the ocean that puts me truly close to death. If there's
| anything positive about those experiences, it's the lesson that
| sometimes the difference between life and death is keeping your
| head and not panicking.
| bentcorner wrote:
| > _A common trap is slot canyons in the southwest desert in the
| summer, when it 's hot and dry, and hikers don't know about the
| rains in the distant mountains._
|
| Good example of a flash food in a canyon, and subsequent
| rescue: https://youtu.be/FJOpZF_4b-w
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > _I 've been on mountain peaks on nice summer days when storms
| appear as out of nowhere (not the typical afternoon rains), and
| there's lightning, high winds, and 50oF temperature swings. In
| that kind of situation, things can turn very dangerous very
| quickly. Stuff that you take for granted suddenly isn't true
| any more: some rock which is rough and gives great traction
| suddenly gets slippery, winds that come from a prevailing
| direction suddenly come from somewhere else and the formerly
| sheltered areas aren't any more, clouds and fogs may come in
| and visibility may drop to zero._
|
| Even hiking out here in the Appalachians the swiftness of the
| arrival of thunderstorms has caught me offguard a few times.
| You can go from sun to hail, blistering wind gusts, and
| lightning in short succession, and if you're on a high bald you
| really may have nowhere to hide.
|
| As the essay above hints at, this potential danger is part of
| why we seek these places out. When you follow the happy path,
| you get exercise, views, solitude... all rewarding of course.
| But being apart from the safety net of civilization can put you
| on a knife's edge. You can find yourself off that happy path
| surprisingly quickly - and for the adrenaline junkies among us,
| it's part of why we're out there.
|
| (Maybe ops engineers, or old school sysadmins, can somewhat
| relate...)
| xeromal wrote:
| Just read this article and I love how they called the Grand
| Canyon, the inverted mountain.
|
| I hiked down into it a few years ago. I feel like I'm a well-
| prepared person. On less than a day mountain hikes, I always
| bring about 1500 calories worth of bars, 2.5L of water, a
| flashlight, multitool, and something warm if it's cold. It adds
| a bit of weight but I feel at ease with some backup tools. I
| made my way down to the bottom (easy) when I realized I was
| already out of water. WTF I said and I opened my camelback and
| behold, there was a hole. When I had sat down for a short
| breather, a really sharp rock had stabbed right through my bag
| and water bladder with ease and the the bag completely drained.
|
| I pushed my way back up but it was very hot and I think I hit
| the first or 1.5 stage of heat exhaustion. Like the article, my
| brain felt like mush and I felt a massive struggle to move.
| Luckily, there's a spring or some kind of water source midway
| or so and I just drank a solid amount of water before moving on
| to the next. I ended up making it ok but it definitely was
| uncomfortable thinking you were going to dehydrate as you went
| up.
|
| Random story but I just wanted to share that you can prepare
| all you want and sometimes life still tries to kick you in the
| butt. These days I carry a small garmin device that can call a
| helicopter anywhere in hte world. It costs a bit but it's worth
| the peace of mind that if I manage to injure myself to the
| point of being unable to move, I can call for help.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Moose do not fuck around. I was solo camping just off Death
| Canyon trail in Grand Tetons in September of 1998 and a bull
| moose appeared a bit up the hill from me and started bellowing
| and shaking his horns at me. I really had no where to go, so I
| pressed myself up against a small tree, no really knowing what
| was going on or what to do. Just then two female moose charged
| through my camp down towards the stream a couple of hundred yards
| away. After that the bull turned and wandered around me downhill.
|
| Turns out I had set up my tent on a barely-visible trail that
| they were probably accustomed to using to get up and down the
| slope. I don't know if I was really in any danger, but I gained
| more respect for moose after that.
|
| Ironically, I'd spent the entire hike that day worrying about a
| bear encounter, but the only time I saw a bear was from long
| distance, across the valley, a mother and her cub.
| justsocrateasin wrote:
| I recently went on a 60 mile gravel bike trip with a rather large
| group (50 riders) in the PNW. It was ~May of last year, and a
| freak storm came out of nowhere over the mountain, while we were
| in a large national forest. We were all wearing shorts (weather
| was in the 60s), and woefully unprepared as the temperature
| dropped into the 20s. I had thin gloves with holes in them. The
| storm dumped sleet on us and we had to descend a mountain in the
| snow for an hour in those temperatures, soaking wet. After 30
| minutes I couldn't feel anything past my forearm, or below my
| ankle, and we had to bike about 2 hours in those conditions. The
| group got split up, and we all got hypothermia. it's a miracle no
| one died. I somehow got a flat tire and my sealant didn't fix it.
| Apparently I turned to my friend and asked if my rear tire was
| low and he lied and said it looked fine, knowing that if I
| stopped to try and fix it, I wouldn't have the coordination to
| actually repair the tire with how cold my hands were, and I would
| have really struggled to get going.
|
| Entire thing could have been avoided if we had gone into it with
| the assumption of "When you enter the mountains, assume that any
| cold/wet weather is possible". Bring hand warmers and/or safety
| blankets, or even just a big roll of aluminum foil. Someone in
| the group had brought an amazon package specifically for that
| reason, and they shoved it in their jersey to block wind and keep
| their core body temperature up. They were fine, the rest of us
| were not.
|
| EDIT: another storm I'm just remembering - not mine, but my dads.
| When he was 18 he was hiking on the side of a ravine in
| California with two friends. They were supposedly trying to find
| some caves in the side of the hilltop, and my dad grabbed some
| loose rock and fell - over 100ft straight down, another 200
| tumbling at an angle. He spent 3 months in the hospital, mending
| a fractured skull and jaw, 2 broken vertebrae, and a whole lot of
| other injuries.
| starwind wrote:
| What time did the storm roll in?
| switchbak wrote:
| I got caught near the top of Mt. Fromme - literally a 40 min
| climb from city streets in North Vancouver. A flash storm hit
| us near the top, hit us with rain + hail in the middle of
| summer, and from +24 degrees C down to 3. We went from fine to
| hypothermic VERY quickly. Bombed down to the bottom of the hill
| through gnarly trails, freezing my hands and feet off all the
| way down. Since we were in t-shirts it was getting pretty
| serious. At the bottom of the hill the weather pattern
| disappeared and it was warm and sunny again.
|
| Sometimes you can even have life risking events in the front
| country, on a gorgeous day with a great forecast. Now I take
| small emergency jacket all the time* regardless of anything.
| Another good reason is if you sustain an injury, you can get
| tremendously cold even in decent weather. Heating packs are a
| good idea too.
|
| * - well until I get negligent again, and get caught out in
| another hailstorm.
| josefresco wrote:
| Rivers are no joke. Took my kids on a chill, grandparent friendly
| "lazy" river at a campground years ago. One of them flipped their
| tube on the only hazard half-way down and while we were safe she
| was in a panic. Fast forward to the same river years later, me
| and the (older) kids are set to exit the river on a fast shallow
| rocky area and all of us were almost swept off our feet and (most
| likely) badly injured. I had to grip my daughters arm so tight I
| was worried she'd be bruised.
| pge wrote:
| There are two takeaways from this story:
|
| (1) always know the risks you are getting into - while she was an
| experienced outdoorsperson, the author clearly had little to know
| awareness of the dangers of moving water.
|
| (2) statistically, things happen outside your control - and our
| natural response is to pretend it can't happen to us because we
| follow the rules, but that's not true. Sometimes lightning hits
| you, or the drunk driver slams into your car, or your foot slips
| in a place where there's no margin for error.
|
| To me, (2) is the more important point, and can be lost in the
| harrowing story that she uses to make point (1). You can do
| everything right, whether that is in the outdoors or driving on a
| highway, and still become a fatality. When we pretend it couldn't
| happen to us, because we are better prepared, respect the
| environment, etc, we are kidding ourselves.
|
| The outdoors may bring this into starker focus because the margin
| for error is lower, but the point applies throughout our lives.
| alistairSH wrote:
| It doesn't take much. I live near the Potomac, just upstream of
| Great Falls and DC. People drown on the flat stretches every
| summer. Usually a family picnic, somebody goes for a quick dip,
| and never returns. It looks calm. It isn't.
|
| And just downstream, world class kayakers paddle Great Falls for
| fun and practice.
|
| It's wild (and sad) to think about the two groups of river users.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Because of modern civilization we have a rose-tinted view of
| nature and take it for granted.
|
| Raw nature is scary and easily able to kill you.
| h2odragon wrote:
| "Raw nature" is around you all the time.
|
| Safety is an illusion, you never know when there's a meteor
| with your name on it.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Sure, but if you live in New York City, you don't really need
| to worry about getting eaten by a bear on your walk to the
| coffee shop.
| rob74 wrote:
| ...and the more we try to legislate away any possible source of
| danger we might encounter in our day-to-day lives, the less
| prepared we will be for places where nature is left to fend for
| itself.
| mihaic wrote:
| I don't think it's a problem of legislation as much as
| forgetting to repeat the message that danger is everywhere.
|
| A car can easily crush you, electricity can stop your heart.
| Don't be paralyzed in fear, but still think a bit of the
| worst plausible case.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| That doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an argument. "We
| need to keep life more dangerous in general so that when we
| hit special cases it'll be easier to deal with" strikes me as
| generally doing more harm than good because our day to day is
| going to cause more harm and those special cases are always
| going to be special.
|
| Unless you have specific examples that you're thinking of
| here.
| michaelt wrote:
| _Hypothetically_ I 'd rather my kid learn her limits by
| breaking her arm in the playground at age 10, than doing so
| in the wilderness at age 20.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| What limits are those? The "I shouldn't have fallen off
| the monkey bars" lesson isn't applicable to the
| wilderness, is it? What's the carry over? "Broken arms
| hurt"? I don't think people are unaware of that. Also,
| what will break your arm at 10 is different than what
| will break your arm at 20.
| scruple wrote:
| Doing risky things in an environment where you can get
| help vs. an environment where _you 're on your own_.
| There are good lessons to learn by taking physical risks
| in more controlled environments. Like learning not to
| take dangerous and/or unnecessary risks when you're on
| your own because you know you might get yourself into a
| situation where you depend on help.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Given this is a story about a woman who repeatedly nearly
| dies it doesn't seem like it helps.
| [deleted]
| scruple wrote:
| Maybe she should've spent more time at the playground as
| a child.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I see it as more of a vicious cycle.
|
| The "don't put this plastic bag on your mouth" warnings
| come about because the public supports those laws/cases.
| Those people are at the point were they rely on other to be
| responsible for them rather than using common sense. Those
| laws/cases create an environment where people come to
| expect warnings for everything rather than rely on their
| own common sense.
|
| I do think you're right that day to life would cause more
| harm without any warnings, at least for certain people. The
| people who are responsible for themselves are generally
| going to be ok in either situation. The people who are
| happy-go-lucky and rely on others to think for them and
| arlt high risk in either situation, sometimes regardless of
| if warnings are present.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Are those warning labels there because they've been
| proven to be effective, or because someone sued and
| that's their way to mitigate that? I have a problem
| visualizing the venn diagram of people who are so stupid
| they'll put the bag in their mouth but also people who
| will listen to the words written on said bag.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I mean, all the time people slip and fall on ice and then
| sue. You can see it, you walk on it, but you don't assume
| the risk and force the property owner to pay. I assume
| that most warnings are just there because someone got
| sued or doesn't want to get sued.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| People do, it's true. The question I have is would a
| "Danger! Slippy ice!" actually stop people from hurting
| themselves? Because I don't think it would, it would just
| make the sueing harder.
| giantg2 wrote:
| For some yes, for some no. My point is that having that
| warning won't help the reckless. It's not needed for the
| intelligent. It might help those people who have come to
| expect warnings for things. However, it hurts them
| overall because it's a common risk and other areas won't
| have those warnings possible causing then to act without
| caution and getting hurt there. So the warnings might
| help in a specific Cass for a very small group of people,
| but will overall be a negative if the person encounters
| that risky situation when it doesn't have a warning. I
| hate to say it since it tends to have political tones,
| but sheeple - people who just do whatever they're told
| and don't think for themselves - will increase as we
| remove the need to think to survive. Supposedly wild
| animals are more intelligent than similar domestic
| animals.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| A mix of both I think.
|
| The plastic bag warning is aimed at parents of children
| mostly. Babies, love crinkly things. I know that my son
| when he started crawling would seek out the on floor
| garbage cans to play with the bags we used as a liner.
|
| If you have someone who is not thinking about the
| ramifications, they would let the kid play with the bag,
| kid would end up putting it over their head(yay, surround
| sound) and some percentage would die.
|
| There are similar warnings on buckets, about drowning.
| Kids that age love water, if they manage to get
| themselves head first in a 5 gallon bucket it only takes
| an inch of liquid of so for them to drown. Most people
| wouldn't think it takes so little.
| giantg2 wrote:
| In theory, children that young shouldn't be unattended
| anyways. The onus shouldn't be on the company for not
| printing a warning, but on the parent for a lack of
| supervision (aka negligence).
| jessaustin wrote:
| Printing the warning might be cheaper than dealing with
| lawsuits? Courts don't accept "ha, Darwin!" as an
| argument.
| giantg2 wrote:
| And people still sue even if a warning was present. And
| nobody is saying "ha, darwin". They're saying stuff like
| "why weren't you supervising your 1 year old" or "how
| could we anticipate that someone would get [object] stuck
| in their butt".
| cdot2 wrote:
| I don't think he was making that argument. Someone who
| climbs mountains every week is less likely to be hurt in a
| given mountain climb than someone who doesn't but that
| doesn't mean that the best idea for safety is to climb
| mountains often.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I hope they clarify, because "legislate away any possible
| source of danger" doesn't seem related to "frequency of
| mountain climbing" to me.
| the_af wrote:
| > _Someone who climbs mountains every week is less likely
| to be hurt in a given mountain climb_
|
| On any given mountain climb, maybe. But overall? I don't
| know. A coworker of mine who liked mountaineering made
| lots of acquaintances in that lifestyle, and he told me
| they are often missing limbs and show lots of ugly scars,
| and have lots of near-death anecdotes about themselves.
| I'm talking about people who do this either _for a
| living_ or as an all-consuming lifestyle, not casuals.
|
| He told me of a girl, a pro mountaineer, who was missing
| several fingers and had plenty of teeth knocked out. Her
| skin looked terrible, too. And he told me this is common.
| Her boyfriend was also a mountaineer, because that's yet
| another common fact: mountaineers band together, it's
| difficult to be in a couple with one if you don't find
| that lifestyle fascinating.
|
| Another friend who does parachuting (from airplanes) told
| me he knows lots of people who do BASE jumping (or even
| worse, those senseless "wingsuit" jumpers) and they tend
| to die young. They do _a lot_ of it, always chasing a
| more extreme high, until one day they simply don 't make
| it.
| alocasia-1 wrote:
| The author made decisions to put herself in dangerous
| situations. What does that have to do with seatbelt laws or
| food inspection guidelines?
| rob74 wrote:
| Ok, maybe my statement was too generic... it's more about
| the environment in cities that looks suspiciously similar
| to nature but isn't - trees that are tested regularly for
| stability, paths that are kept free of roots or stones you
| might trip over, guardrails and warning signs everywhere
| there might be the slightest possibility of danger etc.
| kubb wrote:
| Depends on your worldview. If you believe that all
| regulation is inherently bad, you might be searching for
| reasoning chains that lead to the conclusion that she died
| because of it.
| alocasia-1 wrote:
| Feels like a serious reach, and trying to shoehorn
| unrelated issues into a discussion they don't belong. The
| author goes over her repeated brushes with death - and
| the warnings she received prior - and they don't seem to
| deter her from putting herself in more situations. Making
| everyone else unsafe isn't the solution. (If a "solution"
| is even needed. I think she's just describing her own
| instance of human behavior.)
| kubb wrote:
| Agreed, it's just something we humans do: we search for
| information that confirms our worldview.
| iso1631 wrote:
| Heat Stroke was something that really took me from my last
| hostile environment course. Sure bombs bangs and bullets are the
| things most think about in those types of hostile climbs, but I
| expect if I go to Ukraine for a few weeks I might have a bomb
| land on my head. The Matthew Power case it what really stuck with
| me.
|
| He was a journalist who lived in New York, it was winter and well
| below freezing for weeks and he'd acclimatized, but he agreed to
| go for a walk with a friend in Uganda. So he flew there
| overnight, landed, went out drinking and catching up, then headed
| off on a walk along the Nile in 100F+ weather. They were fairly
| well prepared, had emergency satelite communication etc. First
| few days were fine, but then they headed off the road. Only a few
| miles, then over the course of an hour he went from needing a
| short break, to being delirious, struggled to drink, then finally
| passed out. The rescue helicopter they had the coverage for
| didn't get there in time - literally two hours from "can we pause
| a minute" to "he's dead".
|
| Power was an experienced traveller, on a decent expedition, with
| good support. Not a flip-flop wearing tourist you find up half
| way up a mountain with no map and a twisted ankle. A walk for a
| few miles from a road in 30C sun is the kind of thing you may
| think will end up with some sunburn if you forget to wear a hat,
| not something that will kill a 39 year old before a helicopter
| can reach him.
| sweetjuly wrote:
| It's tragic but it seems like anyone who regularly does any
| wilderness activities/adventure sports knows one or many people
| who have died doing it. I know some that have drowned, others
| that fallen due to badly placed cams. It's awful but, as the
| article says, if you know enough people it'd be bizarre if you
| _didn 't_ know a few...
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| reading it I got the feeling the thing that was going to kill her
| was the constant alcohol abuse.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| I think it's important to note poor planning, unawareness, and
| frankly stupid, naive, or ignorant decisions can make nearly any
| environment or activity dangerous.
|
| As an example I once got in a car with people I'd just met. After
| driving a few blocks one of them held a gun to my head. The
| driver then drove us out to the middle of nowhere... I was
| convinced I was going to be killed. I couldn't say how long the
| drive was but it felt like hours. They "just" robbed me and left
| me there. Frankly, dealing with the police after this was just as
| traumatizing as the initial experience - after I described the
| perpetrators (yes, including race) and the overall situation they
| assumed it was a drug deal gone bad (even though I've never had
| anything to do with drugs) and more or less dismissed me. They
| actually took it a step further and started mocking me.
| Essentially, they heard the race of the suspects and assumed I
| was initially in that situation because of something criminal
| (I'm white). It was awful.
|
| I was pretty traumatized for a while but in the years since I'm
| much more aware of my surroundings at all times. I certainly
| don't trust people I don't know well and put myself in situations
| even remotely similar to that. I definitely have some PTSD but it
| doesn't impact my life much on a daily basis. In telling this
| story people frequently respond with "that was stupid". I can't
| say I disagree but it's also been eye-opening to observe a lot of
| casual and overt racism in response.
|
| Point being, I essentially "victim blame" myself to some extent.
| I don't know if that's psychologically good or bad but what I do
| know is factoring everything in the chances of anything like that
| ever happening to me again are much lower. I'm not an outdoors
| type person but I imagine that (as the article describes) similar
| factors can easily and rapidly assemble to lead to more-or-less
| near death experiences.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I've always found the way the term "victim blaming" is usually
| used to be unhelpful. For example when you recommend someone
| lock their doors, someone might object and accuse you of victim
| blaming - because you have the right to leave your door
| unlocked and not be victimized. You may have that right in a
| perfectly just world, but in this world people don't respect
| that right, so it's good to protect yourself.
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| If you don't mind sharing, what was the reason to get in the
| car with them to drive? Were you planning to head out to an
| event like a hike or something that you had arranged online,
| but hadn't known the people ahead of?
| kkielhofner wrote:
| I wish it was anywhere near that "respectable".
|
| I was visiting a college town for an away football game. This
| was the night before the game and some of my friends and I
| went out. I met these two guys at a college bar my friends
| and I went to. My friends were going back to our hotel but
| these guys (who we had all met maybe an hour before) had
| invited me to a party. It was still fairly early and I
| thought "Neat, this will be a different and interesting
| experience". Unfortunately it was - much more than I had
| imagined.
|
| It's likely that if the circumstances were closer to what
| you've described the police would have taken me more
| seriously.
|
| I should also probably add that this was in a period of my
| life where I was unknowingly experiencing untreated bipolar
| disorder. If you're not familiar with manic or even hypomanic
| episodes your risk assessment can be very warped. That was a
| large component of this situation.
| shortstuffsushi wrote:
| I guess in the scheme of "things that happen in a college
| town," being invited to another party from a public bar
| with people you just met there doesn't seem like a
| particularly unusual thing to take part in either. It being
| a college town, and stemming from a bar, does seem like it
| may have aided in the inappropriate response from the
| police, unfortunately. I wonder how many college kids end
| up in a similar situation, where in most cases the police
| likely won't even be able to do anything to follow up. A
| friend's brother had a similar experience, having been
| approached at a gas station for help and ultimately being
| beaten up and mugged. Aside from also being treated like a
| drug addict (which he was, to be fair), he was told they
| they couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it anyway since
| they had no way of knowing the people involved.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| That's the other side - when describing the situation to
| the incredulous officers my take was (essentially) "The
| beginning of this scenario likely happens multiple times
| every single day in this city and it's not about drugs or
| other criminality". It's a fairly standard situation by
| college town standards, not some fantastical story or
| some other scenario that screams "a bad guy ripped off
| another bad guy". At one point they even said "we just
| don't understand why you would get in a car with people
| you just met". It was clear to me the subtext there was
| "why would you trust /those/ people". Again, sadly, it
| was clear race was a factor.
|
| In my situation the bar was a corporate national chain in
| the downtown center with locations in most college towns
| (at least in my experience). They likely had video
| surveillance from every angle. The perpetrators may have
| even paid by credit card, been already known to others
| there, possibly even the staff, etc. Compared to the
| situation your friend's brother experienced it seems like
| there's a decent chance my assailants could be caught. As
| I said I'd been talking to them for an hour, left with
| them, etc. Video wouldn't be tough to get.
|
| I often wonder if it was a one-off crime of opportunity
| or some MO/pattern of theirs. No way to know I suppose
| but given my case they certainly wouldn't have any reason
| not to do it again.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Victim blaming does NOT just happen with SA cases. I know
| someone that was mugged in a small town. When he reported to
| the police it was recommended for him not to file an official
| report, because they would be forced to arrest him for underage
| drinking.
|
| P.S. Arrest doesn't mean taken away in cuffs, so it was
| probably gonna be a ticket. Still, this is utterly ridiculous.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| It's interesting you mention SA cases. I'm not proud to admit
| it but prior to this experience I was firmly in the camp of
| "Of COURSE you report it, go to the police, testify, etc". In
| my incident even though the responding officers were
| terrible, racist, victim blaming, etc they filed what I'm
| sure was a mandatory report. I received a call (voicemail)
| from a detective about a week later. I was still having
| nightmares and pretty messed up at that point. I never even
| called them back - I just wanted to move on and after the
| initial experience with the police I didn't even want to
| think about how much worse it could get. I felt (and still
| feel) very violated and a bit traumatized by the experience.
| I can't even remotely imagine how much more violated I would
| feel if it was a SA.
|
| The most positive outcome of this experience was the 180 in
| my understanding of these types of violations and the empathy
| I acquired. Again, I'm not proud to admit it and I'm still a
| little bothered it took something happening to me personally
| to better understand this.
|
| While we're on the topic of empathy I also better understand
| poverty. The perpetrators of this incident risked kidnapping,
| armed robbery, who knows what charges with what I'm sure
| would be considerable amounts of jail time - for the $100 I
| had in my pocket and $100 (or whatever) they got from selling
| my locked iPhone to part out (after being marked stolen with
| iCloud it pinged once several months later - from China
| IIRC). I couldn't imagine risking going to jail for $100,000
| let alone $100. Poverty and life circumstances create a level
| of desperation I can't fathom.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| Every year I watch as more entitled people cause the state and
| national parks to restrict access.
|
| Someone doing something dumb, going where they shouldn't, taking
| something, saying something, posting something.
|
| The majority loose out because of the selfishness of the few.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| First I thought that I'm lucky, because I'm not a big outdoor
| kind of guy. Then I remembered that I've had like 4 close calls
| while motorbiking, so to each their own risk I guess.
|
| (Let's not forget how many people die per year just by falling
| from a step-ladder etc.)
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Something that I was thinking of last week as I stood on the
| top rung of a wet, icy ladder in a snowstorm, clearing wet snow
| off a satellite dish!
| xcskier56 wrote:
| One of my favorite quotes is "Good judgement comes from
| experience; experience comes from bad judgement". I really like
| this article for showing the other side to viewing other people's
| mistakes... almost everyone very experienced in the wild have
| made some bad judgement calls before, and through luck or skill
| have managed to not get themselves killed. Everyone was a
| beginner at some point, and while we can take solace in knowing
| we will hopefully not make the mistake that whomever we're
| reading about did, remember that we've all done stupid things and
| gotten lucky.
|
| I follow a few of the prominent ski mountaineers, and one of my
| favorite times is when they talk about a decision they made on a
| trip that was a bad one, but didn't end up badly. "Another notch
| on the belt of 'I got away with something'". I think this
| acknowledgement of making a mistake and getting away with it is
| very important b/c that is how you identify the lessons you need
| to learn.
| nebulous1 wrote:
| I enjoyed reading this but I have a mixed opinion on it at the
| end.
|
| 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/
| idontpost wrote:
| [dead]
| aendruk wrote:
| You've misread that part; the rules are offered tongue-in-cheek
| as a critique of false reassurance.
| nebulous1 wrote:
| Looking at the end again this seems very likely. In fact I'm
| not even sure I read the "repeat these" paragraph the first
| time, as that one hammers home your point.
| tasuki wrote:
| How does:
|
| > Either way, statistically, one of you will die this summer.
|
| go together with:
|
| > But you can take comfort in knowing that there were less than
| eight deaths per 10 million visits to national park sites between
| 2007 and 2018.
|
| ?
|
| I'm confused. How many people were there in that room when the
| ranger said statistically one of them would die? Were they for
| some reason more statistically likely to die than the other
| visitors? What was the reason?
| advisedwang wrote:
| They were employees of the park, not random visitors.
| tasuki wrote:
| How many do you think there were? And what do you think is a
| chance for a single park employee to die during a given
| summer? To me, this still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
| itsmemattchung wrote:
| Some tips on where to begin to learn more about nature and
| survive in the wild? Maybe an REI class?
|
| I'm _a little_ embarrassed to admit that should I ever venture
| out into the wilderness, I would definitely not survive. I lack
| basic survival skills and nature would eat me alive.
|
| That being said, I always admired folks who could go camping for
| days (or weeks), who could cook up a warm (and edible) meal over
| a campfire.
| user3939382 wrote:
| The first thing to learn is to have respect for the harsh
| reality of the environment. You'd be surprised how many people
| get killed because they don't (looking at you Christopher
| McCandless). So your awareness itself is already a good start.
| the_af wrote:
| I don't understand why McCandless was idolized (I do know
| there was backlash from actual knowledgeable people, like
| park rangers). He purposefully put himself in harm's way and
| didn't have any relevant skills that would have helped him
| survive. So what's admirable or romantic about the way he
| died?
| blackbrokkoli wrote:
| Well he most likely died due to poisoning himself with a
| misidentified plant that was only ever documented as
| dangerous in an ancient encyclopedia over 100 years old.
| Nothing romantic about it, but nothing screaming "no
| relevant skills", either.
|
| Don't think this is the part people romanticize, I think
| it's the whole "I think careers are a 20th century
| invention and I don't think I want one" and the "Instead, I
| will walk into the wild" that does it for people.
| chc wrote:
| The only reason he was even still there when he died is
| because he didn't have a map of the area and thus
| couldn't figure out how to cross the river to get back.
| blackbrokkoli wrote:
| Certainly a way to look at it!
|
| Zooming out a bit, you could also say he died because he
| churned the philosophy of using the aids and crutches of
| civilization to maximize his hedonistic well-being at all
| cost - which is maybe a more interesting and ambiguous
| point to discuss than whether maps are useful ;)
| the_af wrote:
| I think the plant itself was a detail. He was likely to
| hurt himself one way or the other. He was cut off from
| civilization or help, he didn't know about relatively
| nearby crossings (having "ditched the map" on purpose)
| and he had no survival skills.
|
| He could have poisoned himself with something else, or
| been attacked by a wild animal, or treaded on some
| treacherous ground and broken a leg, all of this outside
| the reach of human help, and he did this on purpose.
|
| > _" Instead, I will walk into the wild"_
|
| But this is what I don't get. "I will commit suicide by
| walking into the wild without resources or knowledge",
| what's admirable about that? He was basically playing
| Russian Roulette! I mean, I get that suicide itself is
| the stuff of romantic ideation, maybe that's the thing?
| blackbrokkoli wrote:
| You know, I wanted to type out some sassy reply, but I
| keep failing to put my finger on what's romantic about it
| (even though I guess I "relate" to that position).
|
| I don't think it's the suicide aspect, and - maybe
| besides the point - personally I don't think the guy was
| trying to die (not anymore or less than a freeclimber).
|
| Maybe the Webster 1913 definition for "romantic" can help
| shed a light:
|
| > Characterized by strangeness or variety; suggestive of
| adventure; suited to romance; wild; picturesque; --
| applied to scenery; as, a romantic landscape.
| the_af wrote:
| Why sassy? I like that you didn't try that angle.
|
| I know what "romantic" means. I don't think McCandless
| was a romantic; I think he was reckless. His romanticism
| was entirely artificial -- Krakauer's opinion that he
| "threw away the map" on purpose since there are no really
| unexplored lands anymore hints at this -- and he didn't
| need to live this rough life, he strived to put himself
| in harm's way. Someone who crosses the highway with their
| eyes closes is not a romantic, they are simply stupid.
|
| And like I said in another comment, I think he completely
| misread Jack London and failed to learn the lesson from
| that writer: that wilderness is ruthless and will kill
| you the minute you let your guard down, or simply out of
| bad luck.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Poisoned by legumes, that most people seen (wrongly) as
| safe to eat, just because they are legumes
| poulpy123 wrote:
| You mistake idolization and fascination. People (myself
| included) are fascinated by his calling to quit society and
| to act on it, but I never saw someone idolizing him
| the_af wrote:
| Ok, so it's fascination. And a heavy dose of
| romanticization.
|
| Yet McCandless was essentially reckless rather than
| heroic. It's not that hard to die if you put yourself in
| an extreme situation, without preparing yourself or
| having any safeguards. It's a form of Russian roulette
| rather than "rejecting society"; though, I suppose,
| suicide is the ultimate form of rejecting society.
|
| I see that he liked Jack London. So do I! However, I must
| wonder how thoroughly he read London's work, especially
| his Klondike gold rush stories, because very often in the
| stories the main character ends up dead, defeated by bad
| luck and an unsympathetic wilderness which is hostile to
| clueless men. I mean, did he read "To Build a Fire"?
| rob74 wrote:
| Another cautionary tale is the one of the "Death Valley
| Germans" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_Germans)
| - to me, this one is even more chilling...
| TheCleric wrote:
| Start small. Buy a decent tent, sleeping pad, and sleeping bag
| (if you like REI, their people are usually very good at helping
| you find what you need in your budget). Find a local car
| camping campground (such as a state park) and just go car
| camping. For those unfamiliar, car camping is where you go to a
| campground that you drive up to your campsite (and you are
| rarely very far from some sort of civilization). Before you go
| think of all the things you'd want with you (food, water,
| entertainment, etc.) and pack it up in your car (cold food in
| cooler with ice, of course). If things go wrong (which they
| probably will at first, and that's fine), you can always choose
| to drive to the store if you forgot something or go home if
| something else happens. Most of these campgrounds have small
| hiking trails as well. Start small (<2 miles) and bring some
| water. When leaving, practice the principles of leave no trace
| and make sure the campsite looks how you found it when you
| leave.
|
| Do a few of these and try something new out every time. Maybe
| you want to work on building skills like fire making. Maybe you
| want to try out new equipment such as using a camping stove
| with dehydrated food instead of a fire. Or try out techniques
| like packing all of your stuff in a backpacking pack and take
| it on hikes to see how what you'd need (and possibly not need)
| go backpacking.
|
| Once you feel comfortable start expanding out. Maybe try a day
| hike where you cover more ground (but don't overdo it at first,
| stay within what you know for a fact you are capable of). Do an
| out and back one where you start at your car, and end back up
| at your car. Maybe try going for one night of backpacking to
| "wilderness" camp sites at a local park. These sites are
| usually a short hike from where you'll park with no amenities.
| Practice your skills. Enjoy the nature.
|
| From there figure out what you are enjoying and maximize that.
| Do you like the hiking? The camping? Just hanging out with
| friends around a campfire? Do that. It's not about how extreme
| you can make it, it's about what you like. If hiking makes you
| miserable and all you want to do is sleep outdoors for a few
| nights with a stable fire, then there is no shame in sticking
| to car camping. There will be purists who look down on it, but
| who cares?
|
| Try new things, find what you enjoy, and don't push yourself
| more than you know you are capable of.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| A lot is just experience, and others have given great advice on
| getting started. I want to add a few rules, in no particular
| order, that I find valuable. Some of the rules are slightly
| overkill for basic drive-in camping, but they're worth
| following anyway.
|
| - If you go hiking, take a small backpack. It should have an
| extra layer of clothing, some snacks, and water, at minimum.
|
| - Never eat anything unless you are 100% certain you know what
| it is and it is non-toxic. Only drink from a lake or stream in
| an emergency, and then purify or boil the water if possible.
|
| - Always bring a hat. Like the girl in the article, I've found
| myself in unexpected relentless sun.
|
| - Wear sensible shoes. The definition of 'sensible' depends on
| what you're doing, but when in doubt go slightly overkill.
|
| - Never go into nature alone. Ideally, go with a group of at
| least 3 people. Then if 1 person is seriously hurt, 1 person
| can stay with them and the last person can go for help.
|
| - Always tell someone where you are going and when you plan to
| return. When you get back, tell them you're safe. For a simple
| weekend campout, that means telling a friend or family member.
| For a strenuous full-day hike, that means stopping at a ranger
| station before and after the hike.
|
| - Never go off trail (both because it's easy to get lost, and
| because it's bad to trample mother nature).
|
| - Always have maps - ideally paper ones. Even for a simple
| trail, pull out a cell phone and take a picture of the map at
| the trailhead.
|
| - Bring more supplies (including food and water) than you think
| you need. With each trip you'll learn more about what you wish
| you had and what you brought but didn't use.
|
| - Bring backups of critical things. Two flashlights, two ways
| to start fires, and two knives of some description (they don't
| have to be fancy).
|
| - Have a realistic view of your limits (and your gear's
| limits). Seeing a nifty rock face doesn't mean you know how to
| climb it. Even if you know how, you probably don't have
| climbing equipment with you.
|
| - Animals are not your friends. Research in advance what
| animals to expect wherever you're going, and what precautions
| to take. Camping in bear country is different than camping in
| raccoon country, for example.
|
| - Research where you're going and pack accordingly. Is there
| running water? If not, plan how you will get and purify water.
| Are fires allowed? If not, plan how you will cook your food.
|
| If this whole list is intimidating, just start simply and enjoy
| figuring things out - it can be a lot of fun as long as you
| come prepared (and try to over plan and over-pack at first
| while you learn).
| blitz_skull wrote:
| Lots of local SAR communities will offer survival 101 classes.
| I know East TN has a REALLY good one that I've been to and will
| be back again.
| jonfw wrote:
| Taking a class, hiring a guide, or going with an experienced
| friend would all be a great way to get started.
|
| If you wanted to bootstrap by yourself or with other
| inexperienced friends- I would start by getting a car
| accessible campsite, and then use that as a base camp. Go on
| small hikes that take you back to your site. Very few survival
| skills are needed for that sort of thing- you can get started
| with a cooler, a grill, and a bundle of firewood.
|
| If you enjoy that, then start using more primitive tools and
| trying larger hikes in future trips, and you can work your way
| up to backpacking or whatever your goals are
| Loughla wrote:
| Look to your local Community College or State University
| extension office. Many of them offer outdoors classes.
|
| The problem with private wilderness survival classes you may
| find in the community, even the light versions, is that they
| tend to come with a very particular political slant. And that
| slant tends toward the paranoid.
| [deleted]
| themaninthedark wrote:
| As long as the paranoia is about how nature is going to try
| and kill you at any chance it gets, sounds good to me!
| antipotoad wrote:
| That paranoia is the creeping realization that civilization
| coddles us to the point of uselessness in the face of
| trivial survival challenges, and that nature actually cares
| not one jot for your continued existence as a living being.
| I'd modify your statement to say not that nature is
| _trying_ to kill you, but that you're irrelevant. The
| difference is deeper than it might at first seem.
| krisoft wrote:
| > civilization coddles us to the point of uselessness in
| the face of trivial survival challenges
|
| I scoff at this notion. Each of us is a weak, fragile
| hairless monkey. There is no such thing as
| "civilisation". It is just other monkeys just like you
| and me caring about fellow monkeys so much that we go to
| extremes to protect each other. Civilisation is the term
| one uses to describe these combined efforts. It is not
| something which makes you weak, it is the way we choose
| to cling together and protect each other. It is our way
| to face the survival challenges.
| Loughla wrote:
| Sadly the paranoia in outdoors survival groups tends to be
| less about nature, and more about the government coming to
| take your guns and homes and what-not.
|
| Although, that is my experience in multiple mid-western
| states; so it may not translate to other parts of the
| country.
| xcskier56 wrote:
| I've done a lot of ultralight backpacking. That community
| is, in general, on the more liberal/hippie side of the
| spectrum. One of the funniest things I noticed however is
| that the far other end, the doomsday-preppers, start to
| share a lot of the same tools and food. For example I was
| making my own freeze-dried meals, and most of the sites
| where you could buy the food were targeted towards
| preppers. A little bit of if you go so far right (or
| left) you end up on back on the other side.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| There are millions of people practicing outdoor activities
| without problems, you would do fine if you don't do something
| stupid for getting views on youtube or tiktok.
|
| (and cooking a meal on a camping stove is just cooking, nothing
| magical)
| bombcar wrote:
| Honestly the three things you can do easily:
|
| 1. Only go deep into nature (out of cell range) with someone
| experienced.
|
| 2. Obtain a rescue device (Apple satellite cell, Garmin GPS
| emergency beacon, etc).
|
| 3. If stranded in a vehicle _stay with the vehicle!_
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I disagree with #1, I live in Colorado and many trails here
| are out of cell range. My advice here is either get a
| satellite phone and/or do some research about where you are
| going and only go if it's a well travelled trail. I often go
| out by myself into places without cell coverage but I always
| research the place to make sure that if I run into issues,
| there will almost certainly be someone there to help me. It's
| not a perfect system but it's better than going in blind
| somewhere.
|
| Also, pack 2-3x the water you think you will need.
| TheCleric wrote:
| > Also, pack 2-3x the water you think you will need.
|
| This. Or pack the water you think you need AND have a water
| filtration system with known locations of accessible water.
| Swizec wrote:
| "out of cell range" is not a great measure for deep nature
| imo. On the California coast, for example, you can lose cell
| range without even leaving the road.
|
| And in the Alps, you have areas with so many tourists the
| path is affectionally called a highway, but it would take 2
| hours of hiking to get into cell range because mountains
| block signals.
|
| I think it depends more on how many people you're likely to
| meet per hour than cell range.
| bombcar wrote:
| True, but "out of cell range" is a helpful indicator; if
| you're in cell range you can call for help. There are
| places out of range that are perfectly safe (due to people
| passing by) and there are places in cell range that I'd be
| worried to travel without others; but as a rule of thumb I
| think it works.
|
| This also goes for driving - especially in winter! Do not
| leave the commonly travelled roads if you don't know what
| you're doing! A stuck car gets freezing cold quite fast in
| many places.
| itsmemattchung wrote:
| > 1. Only go deep into nature (out of cell range) with
| someone experienced.
|
| I think the above is probably the most important. Having
| someone experienced within arms reach would be the best bet
| when/if shit hits the fan.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Having someone experienced within arms reach would be the
| best bet when/if shit hits the fan.
|
| Not just that. One can learn a lot from the mere presence
| of someone more experienced. How do they prepare, what do
| they bring, how do they pace themselves, how do they make
| decisions. Basically it makes it more likely that you don't
| even get near the bad situation.
| whymauri wrote:
| Garmin GPS coordinates + downloaded topos got me out of a
| dicey situation slightly lost solohiking in the Grand Canyon.
| Similar situations when the trail flooded in Ouachita
| National Forest. It's a must have for solo hikers.
| antipotoad wrote:
| If you're in the Swiss Alps, have the REGA app installed and
| active, pay the incredibly reasonable membership fee, but for
| goodness sake do not treat it like your personal helicopter
| rescue service.
|
| It's a classic case of moral hazard [1].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
| wil421 wrote:
| Do your research before getting into rivers. My local river has
| several gauges and hotlines you can call to get dam releases.
| They also have a chart of the water release amounts and if you
| could paddle/float/canoe/kayak etc. It even has a turbidity gauge
| that will show you if any harmful bacteria is present, we have
| issues with fertilizer runoff and e-coli. It's a rather mundane
| river in an area not as known as Glacier National Park.
|
| >The river was swollen with alpine runoff.
|
| Red flags right immediately.
|
| If you ever hear 3 horns blasts, get out immediately. A dam might
| release.
|
| I would NOT go down any side forks. Just like the author I have
| been messed up and thrown off my kayak by downed trees on a fork.
| Luckily the water was waist deep and I could stand right away.
| the_af wrote:
| > _Do your research before getting into rivers_
|
| What's amazing from this article, and from others like it, is
| that even being reasonably knowledgeable is not a guarantee of
| anything. I mean, better be knowledgeable, of course -- but
| even people who should know better die and get caught in freak
| accidents. Or simply, one day they let their guard down. After
| plenty of near death experiences, the author of this article
| was still doing some dumb shit, she hadn't learned the lesson
| by her own admission.
|
| This isn't an argument against research; of course you should
| know the dangers and treat the environment carefully. But even
| this isn't a guarantee of survival.
| dahfizz wrote:
| "Research" means something different than "being reasonably
| knowledgeable" in this context. You might be familiar with a
| certain river, but "Is the dam going to release water today"
| and "how much runoff from the mountains is there today" are
| question that you should still research before going out.
| foobarian wrote:
| Acquaintance did some suburban kayaking and didn't see a 3ft
| drop (some kind of dam or culvert under a bridge) until too
| late. The fluid mechanics of that drop are such that there is a
| vortex at the base that makes it difficult to get out. He was
| able to stand but just barely - scary to think how close a call
| that was in a pretty innocuous looking setting.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Yep. A couple of girls got killed in Pittsburgh a few years
| back. They were kayaking down the river and didn't realize a
| dam was ahead. People die all the time in nature for lack of
| preparedness because they don't know the environment they are
| getting into and they don't know their limitations. This also
| endangers rescuers.
| shagie wrote:
| Practical Engineering has a video on the dangers of a
| lowhead dam - https://youtu.be/GVDpqphHhAE
| psychphysic wrote:
| What on Earth!? I just submitted Kyle Hills video on this
| early today to HN.
|
| What an eery coincidence. I hope it's not a bad omen that
| I keep coming across this topic today...
| antipotoad wrote:
| Seems about five others of us also linked his video in
| this thread :) Guess you're experiencing the Baader-
| Meinhof effect, AKA the frequency illusion [1].
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
| shagie wrote:
| It is interesting that Practical Engineering is an often-
| cited channel on HN. Not surprising, but rather a good
| indication of its content, quality, and value.
| whymauri wrote:
| I crossed a small dam solo hiking the Wichita Mountains.
| Not the one at Kite Trail on the Bison Trail Loop (Lost
| Lakes) which is wide and dry, but completely off trail
| since I had to get off trail to avoid bison. It was mossy
| with very little traction and I almost slipped. Brushed
| it off as an annoyance since I didn't get wet.
|
| Watched this video a year later and it made me think...
| how deep was that water, and was it really as calm as it
| seemed? Yikes.
| shagie wrote:
| How about The Strid from the River Wharfe? While your
| river isn't likely that extreme, crossing unknown water
| is not on my top list of things to do.
|
| Tom Scott - https://youtu.be/mCSUmwP02T8
|
| The Most Dangerous River in THE WORLD is HOW DEEP?! -
| https://youtu.be/uJFQXT6PIP8
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Wharfe
| codeduck wrote:
| weirs are drowning machines. Nothing more, nothing less.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yep, we call those low head dams around here. It's like the
| roll under a big surf wave, but perpetual.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Yeah those things are notorious for that. Place I grew up in
| had a lot of small rivers you could pretty much wade across
| most of the year. But you'd still hear of drownings every
| once in a while and if it wasn't a small child it was always
| someone going over a low head dam.
| cafard wrote:
| Back in the 1980s, a number of soldiers drowned in the
| hydraulic below the dam at the Little Falls pumping station
| on the Potomac. One of Tufte's books (I think _Envisioning
| Information_ ) includes the illustration of the effect that
| The Washington Post published shortly after that.
| el_nahual wrote:
| Those are called "weirs", and often known as drowning
| machines. Practical Engineering on youtube has a great video
| about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkR79oDAgOg&vl=en
| DLwdTxdU6smHQA wrote:
| The same guy has a video called "The Most Dangerous Dams"
| [length 8:43]. It seems so be less technical and more
| focused on the dangerous aspects.
|
| edit: link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVDpqphHhAE
| gonzo41 wrote:
| That's called hydrolic lock. It kills experienced people all
| the time. Weir style dams are so subtle and dangerous.
| antipotoad wrote:
| See this video from Practical Engineering, aptly titled 'The
| Drowning Machine':
| https://practical.engineering/blog/2019/3/16/drowning-
| machin...
| bombcar wrote:
| https://www.weather.gov/lmk/LowHeadDamPublicSafetyAwarenessM.
| ..
|
| Low head dams are the drowning machine, and they can look
| very safe and simple.
| james_pm wrote:
| Practical Engineering discussed low head dams:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVDpqphHhAE
| AYBABTME wrote:
| I almost drowned on a beach without surveillance, jumping
| into the surf waist high, for fun, until suddenly the
| receding water pulled me just a few meters further away and
| now I couldn't touch the floor anymore, and was slowly being
| pulled further and further away from the beach. My girlfriend
| of the time was on the beach far enough away that she
| couldn't hear or grasp that I was struggling. By luck and
| after perhaps 10 minutes of fighting, I managed to move
| sideways and forward by persistence until I could touch the
| ground again and walk out. I was completely exhausted and I'm
| not sure how much longer I could have persisted like this.
| Just as I exited a few locals were arriving in haste for me.
| Apparently they had seen me struggling to come back. I'm
| guessing they had witnessed tragedies there before, because
| whereas my girlfriend hadn't picked up that I was in trouble,
| they had.
| danenania wrote:
| The key in surf is to never fight against the rip. While it
| can feel scary to get pulled out, remember that 99% of the
| time, it will end after you are pulled past the break, at
| which point you can swim laterally a bit and then go back
| in with help from the waves. Breaking waves naturally
| create alternating channels in the sand that either push
| you towards the shore or pull you back out to the break.
|
| The other 1% of the time is when you are close to the mouth
| of a bay or some other feature that creates a current
| independent of the dynamics in the surf zone. You'll know
| that's the case if the current stays strong after you're
| past the break. If it's too strong for you to swim against
| it, then you're in trouble and should start waving for
| help.
| rozab wrote:
| The good news is _if you don 't struggle against the
| current_ you should be able to stay afloat for a couple
| hours, long enough for help to arrive
| ogre_battle wrote:
| A couple hours in even moderately chilly water -- to
| include off the coast of California -- will give you
| hypothermia in an hour, often as little as 30 minutes. If
| you have to float for 2 hours without being able to get
| out you'll have a problem.
|
| Rip tides pull out, so let them pull you past the break
| then swim side to side. You shouldn't need more than
| 15-20 min to get past the worst of it, and can work
| laterally to inbound waves.
| jakogut wrote:
| I watched numerous tourists do this in Cancun from our
| penthouse rental on vacation. In one case, a full-grown man
| was swept out approximately 100m and kept getting tugged
| and dashed by the waves as he fought them. A lifeguard kept
| whistling to him from shore and motioning to move
| perpendicular to the current to get back to shore, and he
| finally did.
|
| We also saw lifeguards retrieve a drowned child. They
| worked on him for about fifteen minutes in front of the
| parents before stopping, and the ambulance took him away.
|
| The beaches were marked with red flags as far as the eye
| could see, along with signs in English and Spanish clearly
| indicating that this meant swimming was prohibited, as it
| was unsafe. Many people paid no heed to the warnings.
| MrFantastic wrote:
| If you aren't strong swimmer you should not play in ocean
| waves. If you don't know if you are a strong swimmer you
| are NOT.
|
| The ocean doesn't give a shit about your life.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Why not just tell people never to swim? There are never
| "no waves" when you are at an ocean beach. These sorts of
| absolutist rules of thumb are of no benefit to anyone but
| the people offering them up.
|
| People will go swimming in the ocean and in all myriad of
| bays and estuaries that are more than capable of having
| enough surf to kill them depending on the weather. You
| just need to exercise good judgement about how much surf
| is too much.
| alar44 wrote:
| That's just ridiculous. Most public beaches are perfectly
| safe.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| Drowning doesn't look like drowning. The thing they show in
| movies or on TV is not what happens so most people have no
| clue when someone is in trouble. In some cases kids drown
| in pools while parents are not only present but looking
| right at them. In others like yours people wave and smile
| from the beach as the person in the surf is about to die.
|
| Mayo Clinic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0FH9b1LiwY
|
| WebMD Spot the Drowning Person:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beNheoRRdKk
|
| Another one is Bondi Beach - you can find episodes on
| YouTube. There are a bunch of examples of rescues and how
| little notice any of the people on the beach or other
| swimmers nearby give to people struggling.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Interesting. I think they teach to not swim against rip
| currents in primary school now. I did not live near the
| coast
| scanny wrote:
| Sounds like you encountered a "rip" [0]; usually letting it
| take you out and then swimming after the current eases is
| the safest thing to do. At school (Oceania) we get taught
| this as part of water safety, but I suppose it would be a
| foreign concept to many people, particularly those not
| living near the coast.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_current
| anthomtb wrote:
| Can confirm. My childhood in Colorado taught me nothing
| of rip currents. A few weeks on the east coast of
| Australia was quite the eye-opener.
| vasco wrote:
| I was taught to immediately start swimming parallel to
| the beach. Some rip tides can take you very far away very
| quickly, enough that nobody would be able to get to you
| without a boat, and that is if they were looking at you.
| Best advice is to swim parallel to the beach, while
| remaining calm and swiming at a pace you can hold. Do not
| sprint-swim due to fear.
| danenania wrote:
| Swimming parallel to the beach will get you out of it,
| but it could be a struggle depending on the width of the
| rip and the size of the waves. Getting past the break
| first is often easier since then you can swim parallel to
| the beach and away from the rip without having to deal
| with waves breaking on you.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| I've done a decent amount of white water and stories like this
| make me shiver. If you're in moving water, standing is
| surprisingly dangerous. Float or swim (depending on the
| current) to calm water and get out there.
|
| If you stand (and especially walk) in a fast current, you're
| asking to get your foot caught and then drowned.
| wil421 wrote:
| My story was short. A tree at chest level knocked us over a
| couple feet from the end of fork. We floated a couple feet
| until we were dumped back into the main channel were there is
| little to no current. My heel caught a treble hook from my
| fishing pole. I had to dog paddle the kayak a couple feet to
| the bank and get the hook out of my heel.
|
| There aren't even any classed rapids in this area its more of
| a lazy river thing. An hour or so away there are some cool
| rapids leftover from prior Olympic Games that has a
| consistent dam release.
|
| We were on sit on top kayaks.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > I pulled myself onto land and collapsed on my back, my stomach
| rising and falling, my bikini top torn clean off my bleeding
| breasts, my legs dark with bruises, my arms slick and red. In
| shock, I got up and ran up the hill, through the trees, and onto
| the side of the road, rocks slicing the soles of my feet as I
| wept and screamed. Cars containing tourists passed me by, despite
| the fact that I was waving at them.
|
| What's the matter with people?
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| > I did other reckless shit with my own car. [...] Drove it 120
| miles per hour just to see what it felt like.
|
| Admittedly this gave me a chuckle. Most people don't go that
| fast, but with the right kind of car this no big deal on the
| Autobahn.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| It's not about the speed, it's about proximity with other
| vehicles.
|
| On AutoBahn stretches old M3s and Mercedes E190 are capable of
| 150 mph and they do absolutely floor it. The only risk it's
| mechanical failure or tyre blowing up.
|
| I still mantain that for those looking for kinetic adrenaline
| the big Cigarette powerboats are better, even though they are
| slower than cars you are essentially always surrounded by
| nothing and the feeling is more intense (even though they are
| slower than cars) because you are in the wind yourself and the
| jumping on the waves makes it seems even more kinetic.
| jononomo wrote:
| That is 193 KPH -- seems pretty fast to me, even for the
| autobahn.
| Udo wrote:
| > That is 193 KPH -- seems pretty fast to me, even for the
| autobahn.
|
| German here, it's not fast for the Autobahn, per se. The
| issue is though talking about the speed on its own is nearly
| meaningless, the most important factor becomes the road and
| what speed it is designed for. There are plenty of stretches
| on the Autobahn where there is no speed limit AND you can
| "safely" go 250+kph. Although I personally get uneasy at
| speeds beyond that because it starts to feel like you're
| entering an event horizon where unforeseen things on the road
| ahead are now beyond your ability to meaningfully react to
| them.
|
| That being said, there are _lots_ of stretches on the
| Autobahn where the speed limit is 80-100kph, often with good
| reason.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Old ladies in economy cars will pass you...
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Haha yeah the struggle is real. Still, the majority of cars
| in the leftmost lane is usually expensive with a good
| suspension.
|
| I recently floored it for hours in a Dacia Jogger, going its
| absolute Vmax of 175 km/h, and that was uncomfortable. The
| same in an Audi or BMW is hardly noticeable.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Downhill for hours eh? Calling bs ;)
|
| But seriously: I've had the old lady thing happen to me
| more than once.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| It really only goes that fast on even stretches, of which
| there are plenty in northern & east Germany, and you
| literally need minutes to get there - downhill you can go
| a bit faster, but that gets scary quick. As soon as there
| is even a slight incline it starts to slow down, thats
| true. And I'm talking about the LPG version with 90 PS!
| Thats why you want to floor it: "Und bist du nicht
| willig, so brauch ich Gewalt."
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Und bist du nicht willig, so brauch ich Gewalt.
|
| That had me laughing.
|
| Funny story: I once, long ago in the corridor stopped to
| help a bunch of people in a Trabant, the engine had
| seized and it really wasn't going to go anywhere so I
| offered to tow them behind my 230E, which could easily do
| that. They agreed happily and we hooked them up, and one
| of their party switched to my car to show me where to go
| (illegal to go off the corridor, but screw it, this had
| massive consequences later on but at the time I was still
| totally oblivious). So we're back on the highway and
| doing 50 or so and the guy asks 'can't you go any
| faster?'. I say sure, but what about the tow? 'They will
| have to follow ;)'. Ok, so doing a 110 or so (where you
| could legally go maybe 90 at the time) for an hour took
| us to Frankfurt a/d Oder where they lived, I dropped them
| off at home and the guy that drove the Trabbi came to me
| and said that they'd never gone that fast with it
| before...
|
| Good times. Obviously, for East Germans before the wende
| there was a lot of misery (same in Poland, my
| destination) but there was also a strong camaraderie, 'us
| against the system'.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Lovely story! I can see how 110 is scary in a Trabi,
| especially so considering the state the roads were in.
|
| > there was also a strong camaraderie, 'us against the
| system'
|
| I think this is what gets lost in prosperity, and what
| causes some of the current spiritual misery. You simply
| don't need other people anymore if you have enough money,
| which in turn destroys community. Maybe the land of
| plenty is a dystopia, and we're not meant to live like
| this for extended periods of time.
| CadmiumYellow wrote:
| This is such an interesting point. When people have
| something to lose they turn inwards with the goal of
| protecting what they have. There's something to be said
| about how people can connect when nobody has resources to
| guard. Maybe this is part of why kids and college
| students can form such easy camaraderie compared to
| adults.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, this is _very_ true. The same in Poland. Now it 's
| dog-eat-dog. The difference is night and day and
| obviously there are many gains but also there are some
| remarkable losses and this is one of them.
| emtel wrote:
| One time, I was driving at night in the Sierra after a storm -
| roads were covered in snow. It's a drive I've made close to 100
| times without incident. Going around a bend, I saw a car in the
| ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the
| hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car.
|
| As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the
| bend more or less sideways. I stopped and watched it slide past.
| I could tell it was going to miss me by 10 feet or more, but
| afterward I couldn't stop thinking: What if it had been headed
| towards me? Could I have gotten out of the way in time? What if
| I'd slipped? I couldn't believe how close I might have come to
| dying without even thinking about it. I'll never get out of the
| car in a storm again, at least not without thinking very
| carefully about the situation first.
|
| My other near miss experience was staying at a bread-and-
| breakfast farmhouse in Portugal. I had taken a shower, and was
| standing in front of the bathroom mirror, when I noticed the
| light above the mirror was crooked. It was one of those swiveling
| can fixtures, so I reached up to adjust it. I knew it wouldn't be
| hot since I'd just turned it on, so I grabbed it firmly and then
| asked myself why it was vibrating. And for that matter why was my
| whole arm vibrating? When I realized I was being shocked I was
| able to let go and spent 20 minutes pacing around my room making
| sure I wasn't dead. You really can't do worse than standing
| barefoot, soaking wet, on a stone floor, and grabbing a live
| fixture, can you?
|
| If anyone would like to explain why that didn't kill me I'm all
| ears.
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| Kind of related, but if someone is being shocked, live, what is
| the safest way to help them?
|
| The immediate answer might be turn of the circuit breaker, but
| what if we're in a giant office building? Or I don't have
| access or know where the circuit breaker is?
|
| Grab them with rubber gloves?
| PeterisP wrote:
| IMHO that's a rare event, usually instead of being
| continuously shocked, someone _gets_ shocked and then in the
| worst case they die and you have to apply CPR until an
| ambulance can try to save them.
|
| If someone is being shocked, live, then it all depends on the
| circumstances, but the most generic standard suggestion in
| various first aid courses seems to be using a non-conductive
| stick (e.g. broomhandle) to push them away from the source of
| power or vice versa. They have probably grabbed the thing
| with their hand and are unable to release it as the hand is
| cramped, so that may be difficult.
|
| Finding a circuit breaker may be too long. My intuitive guess
| (though that's not something I have seen recommended) is that
| intentionally causing a short-circit and trip the breaker
| might be faster.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Probably not the full voltage, just a leak. 230V is quite an
| experience. 120V is a mere annoyance by comparison, even if you
| touch live terminals directly. Even 120V is more than
| vibrating, though.
| saalweachter wrote:
| My received wisdom from prior generations was "120V will just
| tickle you, it's 240V you have to watch out for."
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| For context, a modern defibrillator is about 3,000 volts and
| 15 amps.
| bonzini wrote:
| It seems a bit too much, but in any case it's direct
| current. Compared to AC there's almost an order of
| magnitude difference.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| It's not just AC vs DC, but frequency changes a lot. High
| frequency AC can be safe at 30000V can be safe at 10^6
| Hz.
| brnt wrote:
| Oh, I had that "why is my arm vibrating" more often than I
| should. But not often enough for my brain to reduce time to
| diagnosis, which surprises me every time.
| tootie wrote:
| Me too. A light socket was apparently powered via two
| separate circuits. I turned off one but not the other. Idk
| what was happening because I touched a live wire with my hand
| while my elbow brushed a metal door jamb so I think the juice
| flowed through my forearm and not the rest of my body. Made
| my arm buzz, but didn't really hurt and I was able to let go.
| New rule is just turn off every circuit in the house every
| time.
| phillc73 wrote:
| Last Saturday afternoon I was driving home in heavy fog.
| Suddenly coming towards me was a BMW SUV at least 75% in my
| lane. I managed to brake heavily and drift towards the outside
| verge. We didn't hit.
|
| It's about the closest I've come to a head on collision. With
| my whole family in the car, there was utter silence for the
| next several minutes.
|
| Pretty sure I nearly died three days ago.
| cassepipe wrote:
| In case you had hit, a deadly accident would be more likely
| because of the SUV's weigh. A 4000 pounds vehicle contains
| has twice the energy of a 2000 pounds vehicle at the same
| speed. Just another example of inequality in face of death
| between rich and poor.
| hex4def6 wrote:
| The solution, obviously*, is to just drive faster if you're
| in a light vehicle, to match the SUV's kinetic energy. If
| they're going 40 MPH, you just need to go ~60MPH, thanks to
| the v^2 in the kinetic energy equation.
|
| *(/s)
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Equality of outcome, that's indeed the modern western
| take on things.
|
| That v2 in there also means that, if enough people follow
| your advice, we'll eventually start seeing SUVs equipped
| with reactive armor.
| chowells wrote:
| No one reasonable wants blind equality of outcome. They
| want an to understand the cause of the differences, and
| they want that cause to be moral.
|
| That's far different from proclaiming either that there
| is no problem or that outcomes are to be measured
| blindly.
| dbspin wrote:
| An arms race of sorts is inevitable. Your reactive armour
| will be worthless in the face of my active measures.
| Innocent casualties are inevitable, but they're the price
| we pay for freedom.
| antipotoad wrote:
| From one survivor of a near-certain-death scenario to
| another: glad that you're still here with us to tell your
| story. No two experiences are alike, but don't be surprised
| if it takes you a long while to process what happened. Good
| that you're able to talk about it here; if you can, I
| encourage you to talk to your family about it, even if only
| to let them know you acknowledge it happened.
|
| (Then again, feel free to ignore the unsolicited advice of an
| internet stranger, but if you say you nearly died, then
| you're likely in shock to a degree. Maybe this sounds
| excessive, but consider professional support.)
| phillc73 wrote:
| Comment appreciated. My wife, in the front seat next to me,
| and I were certainly in shock. We pulled over and had a 15
| minutes rest while the adrenaline wore off. We breathed
| deeply and talked about what had just happened.
|
| I used to commute in London for many years on a motorcyle
| and also raced them for a few years. I've had my share of
| near misses and ended up in hospital once. That was all
| somehow different - it was only me in danger usually and at
| least when racing I was always hyper aware that things can
| go bad fast.
|
| This was a totally different experience. Completely
| innocuous one might think, on a road regularly traveled, at
| legal speeds. I think having my family with me made a big
| difference to my reaction. It wasn't just me in danger any
| more.
| antipotoad wrote:
| Glad to be of even the smallest help. I think you have
| the right head on for dealing with this. Just keep open
| the door to communication with all the others, especially
| since the shock will fade differently for each of you.
|
| All I can say is that it took me a _long_ time to regain
| the appetite for calculated risk. My companion in the
| scenario seemingly shrugged it right off, but only
| through keeping talking did I know otherwise.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I've accidentally touched live electricity (230V) several
| times, and from speaking to other people it's not a rare
| occurrence. I think you actually need to be pretty unlucky to
| die from an electric shock at home.
| philjohn wrote:
| Depends - if the path it takes is through your heart (or
| head) you're probably going to have a bad time. eg touching
| live with one hand and neutral with the other.
|
| I've had a few mains shocks before as well, a fair few years
| ago, and what saved me was live and neutral touched the same
| hand. I now have an inductance tester I use first, then
| follow up with multimeter and only THEN do I start whatever
| I'm doing.
| Tao3300 wrote:
| > I think you actually need to be pretty unlucky to die from
| an electric shock at home.
|
| Though if there's one thing we've learned from the article,
| there will be plenty of people waiting in the wings of the
| Intenet to sputter "Karma!" and "Darwin!" when you do.
|
| Aside, if you ever feel like saying that sort of thing, take
| an idea, principal, or religious icon that has a deep meaning
| to you, or in the latter case, someone whose work you think
| was influential and great. Fix that image in your mind, think
| "serves you right, asshole", and scream the word or the name
| out at the top of your lungs. Then reflect on how _fucking
| stupid_ that was.
| jfk13 wrote:
| I can confirm that 230V is plenty to give you a serious jolt
| -- like, throw you a couple feet backwards from the thing you
| shouldn't have touched. I imagine it could've killed me if
| the connection hadn't been so rapidly broken.
|
| And that came from the "ground" pin of an outlet! Except that
| the building (in a third-world country that I'll leave
| unnamed here) hadn't been wired correctly, as I learned the
| hard way.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| I've never been hit by 240V thankfully, but when I was a kid
| I felt 120V when plugging a computer into the wall.
| agentwiggles wrote:
| During an ill-advised electrical experiment in my youth, I
| discharged a big capacitor into my hand. Luckily I think the
| current just went into and then out of my thumb back into the
| circuit. Still, the resulting shock knocked me over and gave
| me a tangible and valuable lesson about caution around high
| currents!
| joveian wrote:
| One thing I learned from reading some stuff on an electician
| forum years ago is that the actual ground is really not that
| attractive to household electricity, mostly just to lightning.
| I recall them mentioning a video of, IIRC, someone connecting a
| 15A circuit to a metal stake driven several feet into the
| ground without the circuit breaking. This is also why things
| like stray voltage shocking cows can happen. I'm guessing that
| this might potentially be part of why electric shocks aren't
| deadly more often, it may not be just a path to ground needed
| but a path through ground and back into the circuit (although
| the current needed to kill you is much less than tripping a
| breaker and I think there are various situations that can make
| it easy for that amount to flow into the ground even if there
| isn't a good path back to the circuit, which sometimes there
| is, so possibly this isn't really a factor).
| poulpy123 wrote:
| After wondering for 20 years why people got shocked when
| electric safety is common knowledge, I got shocked myself twice
| in one year because I was stupid
| vinceguidry wrote:
| The path from your hands to feet doesn't go through your heart.
| Really that simple.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| It just shows that life is a long sequence of being lucky. It
| bet during the course of a week everybody does something that
| may get them killed if unlucky. Most people are lucky but a few
| aren't.
|
| I can relate to the shock story. In a school lab I managed to
| lean on a exposed 220V cable. I remember my arm shaking and
| hearing a low hum but couldn't figure out what's going on. It
| felt like an eternity until I pulled my arm away but I bet in
| reality it was just a second.
| ptaffs wrote:
| i think to kill you either there needs to be enough power to
| burn organs, which still may only affect one limb and not be
| fatal, or to pass through your heart, say from one arm to
| another, or arm to opposite leg, and for your heart to be
| disrupted rather than just shocked. But the two aspects are the
| amount of power and the path the current takes. Maybe the floor
| tile was above a waterproof membrane, like a wet-room, and so
| inhibited the power current flow?
| falcolas wrote:
| Most of the current is going across your skin, not through it,
| and stone isn't necessarily a good ground.
|
| A light fixture generally won't create enough current to kill
| you. Usually. Probably not worth testing excessively though.
| rideontime wrote:
| Aren't light fixtures typically direct mains power?
| falcolas wrote:
| Limited by the wiring and circuit breakers - typically
| 15amps.
|
| With as resistive as skin is to electricity, 110 isn't
| usually enough to overcome it and push power through the
| heart.
|
| Keyword: usually
| mkipper wrote:
| I don't think the breaker is really relevant here. Unless
| you've been impaled by a spike, it's impossible to draw
| 15A of current through your body from a 120V or 240V
| circuit. At those voltages, there's really no difference
| (to you) between shocks from circuits with or without a
| 15A breaker.
|
| I guess there is a asterisk here if you're also shorting
| something much more conductive than yourself, since the
| breaker might cut power before you'd naturally let go and
| break yourself from the circuit. But that seems like a
| pretty unlikely situation for most home shocks.
| iso1631 wrote:
| The wiring is meaningless. 1 amps is more than enough to
| kill you. Even if enough current flew to melt the cable
| you'd be dead well before the cable caught fire if it's
| flowing through you.
|
| A breaker may provide some protection against electric
| shock (assuming it's an RCD or RCBO), but I wouldn't like
| to rely on it.
|
| Portugal is 230V. Not sure what breaker the lighting
| would be on but in the UK it's not uncommon for a 6A
| lighting circuit to not be on an RCD at all.
| ak217 wrote:
| The 15A limit in the circuit breaker is there to protect
| the wires, not you. 15A at 110V passing through your body
| will cause massive damage and literally cook you after
| stopping your heart if it's in the way.
|
| Modern circuit breakers and outlets have GFCI/AFCI
| electronics that detect abnormal current leaks to ground
| and abnormal waveforms, and shut off the circuit. These
| actually stand a chance of saving you in a scenario like
| this.
| iso1631 wrote:
| If you have the live and neutral on the same finger you
| might be ok, the current wouldn't pass through your
| heart.
|
| If you're earthed/grounded through your feet though,
| that's a problem, likewise if it's live on one hand and
| neutral on the other.
| _nalply wrote:
| Yes but we can only speculate what happened.
|
| My speculation: most of the power went through the light
| and only a part of it shocked the OP.
| falcolas wrote:
| I'd agree, and not being connected to a good ground
| helped.
| kragen wrote:
| this is nonsense, and potentially deadly nonsense at that
| sowbug wrote:
| PSA about driving around bends. If you're ever in this
| situation, don't stop your car anywhere near the bend! If the
| bend is caused by nature, that usually means that it's wrapping
| around a hill or trees, which means it's blind in at least one
| direction. Human drivers are not physiologically capable of
| stopping a car in time to avoid an obstacle on a blind curve.
|
| I've lived near two such blind curves in my life, and at each
| I've seen minor issues like a flat tire turn into catastrophic
| accidents when the driver parks and someone else comes along
| and hits them.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| low amperage perhaps
| iso1631 wrote:
| A lighting circuit will deliver plenty of amps if there's a
| low resistance path to ground.
| foxyv wrote:
| Typically when a fixture like that is connected to a live line
| it is pretty well grounded. In this case it sounds like the
| grounding wasn't perfect and pretty much turned you and the
| mirror into a voltage divider. Your saving grace was the fact
| that you were the bigger resistor. If the mirror wasn't mostly
| grounding out the circuit, the wet skin would have provided nil
| resistance and you would have probably at least been burned if
| not killed.
| Balgair wrote:
| Pro tip: Always touch electrical-y things with the back of
| your hands first; like with a strange animal. Any spasms will
| cause you to contact away from the thingy.
| [deleted]
| intrepidhero wrote:
| It only takes 80ma across your heart to stop it. Mains voltage,
| in both the US and the rest of the world, can easily develop
| that kind of current, especially if there is moisture involved.
| And yet plenty of folks have accidental contact without lasting
| effects. Electricity is fickle that way. The difference
| between, no problem and totally dead can be subtle, random and
| not obvious. It all depends on the path the current takes. Show
| it respect.
| Someone wrote:
| > It only takes 80ma across your heart to stop it. Mains
| voltage, in both the US and the rest of the world, can easily
| develop that kind of current, especially if there is moisture
| involved. And yet plenty of folks have accidental contact
| without lasting effects.
|
| I think that's because most accidental contact doesn't
| produce much current across your heart. Touching the two
| wires of mains electricity with one hand? Not a good idea,
| but unlikely to kill you. Touching one with your left and one
| with your right hand? Way more risky. Grabbing one with your
| left and one with your right hand? Even more risky.
|
| And of course, modern circuitry often has circuit breakers
| that in many cases rapidly stop the current from flowing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual-
| current_device#Purpos...:
|
| _"To reduce the risk of electrocution, RCDs should operate
| within 25-40 milliseconds with any leakage
| currents[clarification needed] (through a person) of greater
| than 30 mA, before electric shock can drive the heart into
| ventricular fibrillation, the most common cause of death
| through electric shock. By contrast, conventional circuit
| breakers or fuses only break the circuit when the total
| current is excessive (which may be thousands of times the
| leakage current an RCD responds to). A small leakage current,
| such as through a person, can be a very serious fault, but
| would probably not increase the total current enough for a
| fuse or overload circuit breaker to isolate the circuit, and
| not fast enough to save a life."_
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >It only takes 80ma across your heart to stop it
|
| In a lab, sure. In reality you need a lot of amps going into
| the body to get enough amps across the heart to screw with
| it. Defibrillators wouldn't be chock full of capacitors if
| that wasn't the case.
|
| Constantly repeating these sorts of misleading DARE-esque
| talking points is why nobody takes what the safety preachers
| have to say seriously.
|
| People find out through life experience that smoking while
| filling gas, a couple amps from arm to arm, working under
| suspended loads, side rolling big cylinders long distances,
| using ladders on less than perfect surfaces and other little
| stuff like that isn't the instant death and dismemberment
| that they were told it was supposed to be and that throws
| doubt at everything else.
|
| You can't lie to people 50% of the time even if it's "for
| their own good" and expect them to believe the other 50% of
| stuff you say. Electricity and many other things are
| sufficiently dangerous that you shouldn't need to lie.
| ak217 wrote:
| > Defibrillators wouldn't be chock full of capacitors if
| that wasn't the case
|
| Disrupting the heart's rhythm is way easier than restoring
| it. Especially if the disrupting current got in through
| punctured skin (which the defibrillator is not allowed to
| do)
|
| > a couple amps from arm to arm
|
| This is very bad advice. A couple amps at 220VAC is
| devastating if actually delivered inside your body. The
| reason people routinely survive mains shocks is the current
| doesn't actually get through due to intact dry skin, pure
| (poorly conducting) water, no path across their body, or no
| path to ground, which is all a matter of luck.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Wait, what? This is like advocating for playing Russian
| roulette because it's not guaranteed to kill you.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| There's a pretty big difference in the odds of a house
| mains electrical shock stopping your heart compared to
| the 1 in 6 chance of the bullet being in the chamber that
| lands in alignment with the barrel.
| nerdponx wrote:
| How big? Big enough to disregard?
|
| Humans are notoriously bad at evaluating probabilities
| and expected outcomes in probabilistic scenarios,
| _especially_ in when one possible outcome is catastrophic
| with low probability. Otherwise you wouldn 't see so many
| reckless distracted drivers on the road.
|
| You are advocating for a public communication strategy
| that only makes sense in some kind of rationalist fantasy
| world, but not in the real world.
|
| It's not some conspiracy to infantilize the public, it's
| just good sense to not do dangerous stuff and tempt fate.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > How big? Big enough to disregard?
|
| Yes, pretty much. 400 people are electrocuted in the US
| every year, usually in industrial situations. Thousands
| of people will get shocked today. The odds of a heart
| problem are low enough that suggesting people should be
| terrified of light sockets because it may stop their
| heart is just fearmongering, and reduces the
| effectiveness of other safety-related communication. This
| is like California proudly proclaiming that _everything_
| causes cancer. Counterproductive.
| gameman144 wrote:
| I read it more like saying that we should teach "Russian
| roulette has a 1/6 chance to kill you, which increases
| every round", rather than "Russian roulette will
| definitely kill you."
|
| The former puts the information into the hands of
| individuals, and let's them draw the appropriate
| conclusions. With the latter, you risk someone saying "I
| played Russian roulette and it was fine, this whole
| safety thing is BS"
|
| This risk is even bigger if millions of people have tried
| and survived the purportedly deadly activity, such as
| home wiring shocks.
| antipotoad wrote:
| Exactly why I believe telling the public anything but the
| whole truth in a pandemic is a terrible idea (not that I
| really wish to open that can of worms).
| intrepidhero wrote:
| Defibrillators are full of capacitors to boost the voltage,
| not current. They also use carefully located electrodes,
| and come with a razor to remove body hair to create the
| ideal conditions to affect the heart because they need to
| work _every time_. That has nothing to do with whether
| residential power is dangerous or not.
|
| I said mains voltage won't kill you every time but it
| definitely can. We wouldn't put it in residential settings
| if it was instant death. The problem is that the conditions
| that can lead to a deadly accident don't trigger any of our
| ape-brain fear response. Like any risk it should be
| approached with knowledge and care.
|
| If you think any of the things you listed are fine and safe
| just because they don't result in "instant death" then I
| would say we have very different ideas about risk
| management.
|
| I don't appreciate you calling me a liar for presenting
| facts and urging caution.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Portraying the 80ma number as anything other than what
| can happen in a freak accident is misleading and
| dishonest and is counterproductive if the goal is to get
| people to respect electricity because it is in
| contradiction to the lived experience of basically
| everybody.
|
| >The problem is that the conditions that can lead to a
| deadly accident don't trigger any of our ape-brain fear
| response.
|
| No. The problem here is that you are peddling fear to get
| the reaction you want out of people. Potential energy,
| electric or otherwise is potentially dangerous.
| Pretending like it's more dangerous than it is to scare
| people straight is bad. Just because reality doesn't
| scare people into behaving how you like doesn't entitle
| you to be dishonest.
|
| >If you think any of the things you listed are fine and
| safe just because they don't result in "instant death"
| then I would say we have very different ideas about risk
| management.
|
| If you think it's ok to just lie to people because you
| think the end goal is noble I don't care what your ideas
| are.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Volts and amps are not independent values if you're
| applying them to the same resistance (you), and you
| cannot "boost voltage" using capacitors. A capacitor can
| only charge to the voltage that it is charged with.
| martyvis wrote:
| Yes, a single capacitor will only hold the voltage
| applied to it. But after charging each one and cleverly
| arranging them in series you can hold very high voltages
| with a bank of them. This is what occurs in a voltage
| multiplier circuit.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| This is a really silly take. Parent post didn't say YOU
| WILL DIE IF YOU EVER GET SHOCKED, FULL STOP.
|
| They said that you can die if you're shocked. If you have a
| substantial chance of death doing something it's common
| sense to avoid that thing, especially when it's trivial to
| do so. If you want to be a manly man who don't need no
| safety, go for it, but you're setting up a straw man in
| OP's post and safety awareness in general that isn't there.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >Parent post didn't say...
|
| Oh please, Officer Do Good who's doing his guest lecture
| doesn't tell the class that most of those people who's
| overdose he responded to probably wouldn't have been
| saved if they eschewed pot. Presenting the edge case as
| worst case as though it's the common case is lying.
| Gating it with verbiage designed to make it not provably
| lying doesn't change that. There's a reason I compared it
| to DARE. The dishonest messaging is common to both
| contexts and does more harm than good to the core
| messaging.
|
| Getting people worried about low voltage or low amperage
| serves no useful purpose in any context. It is pure
| manipulative fear peddling of the same level as making
| people think pot and alcohol are likely to lead to hard
| drugs.
|
| I'm not saying electricity can't be dangerous. I'm not
| saying to be cavalier about stuff in general. I'm saying
| people engaging in dishonest messaging are doing harm by
| casting shade upon all the people who are preaching
| similar messages but with honesty.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're so determined to be outraged
| about something.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Hmm, I didn't experiment much with that, but most houses
| are wired with 30 mA differential circuit breakers. If
| there is a difference of more than 30 mA between phase and
| neutral, it means there is a leak to ground somewhere, so
| the breaker trips. Well below 80 mA (though not instantly).
|
| If you're wet though, your impedance is lower, so a lot
| more current can flow through you. That makes it much more
| dangerous to touch electrical stuff. Same with being
| barefoot.
|
| Our bodies also have capacitance (complex impedance), which
| makes us more sensitive to AC than DC.
|
| What I don't get is why do we still use differential
| circuit breakers while connecting neutral with ground
| instead of monitoring line impedance a thousand times a
| second. You'd trip the circuit breaker when connecting
| (including touching) neutral or phase to ground, without
| endangering the user (currently we only detect a user
| touching phase via the current flowing through them).
|
| Have the circuit self-test multiple times a second, and use
| 10kV (like livestock fences) with very low capacity to
| measure impedance: give a serious jolt to the person
| touching a wire, with no danger.
| ealexhudson wrote:
| I've done the whole "why is my arm vibrating thing" before,
| except in my case I was trying to get the end of a light
| fitting off, and both the hot and cold prongs were in my hand.
| Got a nice couple of blisters where they touched the skin.
|
| My guess would be not enough of the main current was passing
| across your heart to kill you? I didn't think mains electricity
| was necessary powerful enough to kill people in most scenarios,
| just that it is powerful enough to do it in an unlucky few. I'd
| also imagine the floor wasn't really conducting to earth.
| atoav wrote:
| > If anyone would like to explain why that didn't kill me I'm
| all ears.
|
| What kills people is current, not voltage. With AC having your
| heart beat 50 times a second can also cause you to die _hours_
| or even _days_ after receiving a shock, but even that requires
| enough current to flow and cross your skin resistance. Go to
| ghe hospital even if you are alive and feel well after an
| electrical shock! Your heart may have suffered from this.
|
| That being said, there can be many things at play here. E.g.
| there could have been contact resistance between the live wire
| and the fixture, which would mean the current that could have
| flown through your body was limited by that resistance. The
| reason why you can touch an insulated wire is because there are
| megaohms of resistance between your hand and the wire. Lower
| that resistance gradually and there will be a point where you
| feel the electricity slightly, lower ot more and there is the
| shock. The most hurtful thing would piercing a wire through the
| skin, because then the skin resistance is gone.
|
| Aside from contact resistance it could also be that the bath
| the current took through your body was good (so more on the
| surface, not across the heart, but down one side of the body
| and so on).
|
| That being said, your description of the shock does not sound
| like a fully fledged 230V 50Hz shock to me (certified electical
| engineer). In my experience you _will_ definitely notice it
| right away, e.g. because you suddenly just see black and a
| sharp pain including with extreme vibrations that feel like
| pure energy is hitting you with a brick in the face. Feeling
| the vibration like you described it and then making the
| decision to let go sounds like only a very small current was
| flowing.
| dguest wrote:
| I worked the lowest paying job in a ski lodge one winter. One
| day while waiting in the cafeteria line, one hand on the
| stainless steel counter, I noticed that I got a bit of a shock
| from the steel railing on the other side.
|
| 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.
| DamnInteresting wrote:
| I once worked maintenance at a department store, and one of my
| main responsibilities was electrical repairs (despite lack of
| formal training). The lighting circuits were all commercial 277
| volts. A fluorescent light appeared to be burned out, but as I
| was changing it, I learned that it was actually a wiring issue
| when I was installing the new tube atop a 12 foot ladder. My
| knuckle grazed the fixture and I lit up like a Christmas tree.
| The resulting reflex caused me to crush the fluorescent tube,
| but somehow I managed to not fall. Oh, hello death, I
| acknowledge the brush.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| Nearly the same thing happened to me. Except instead of the car
| missing me my brain told me perhaps from tornado safety
| training in school? If I dropped into the narrow V shaped
| drainage ditch so the car would pass over me I would live. It
| did and I did. I can still remember the tire passing inches
| over my face in slow motion as the car flew into the trees.
|
| I was fine. The driver was some kid that stole their parents
| car. The kid seemed uninjured. The parents were I guess chasing
| them in another car as they arrived only a few seconds after
| the wreck.
| Arrath wrote:
| Holy shit, glad you're okay. That was quick thinking.
| MrMan wrote:
| [flagged]
| citizenpaul wrote:
| I guess you are mocking my near death experience? You
| must be a wonderful person.
|
| Allow me to even further your disbelief. Nearly the same
| thing happened to me again years later. Except the second
| time was a motorcycle. I narrowly sidestepped a
| motorcycle on a mountain road that had taken the turn too
| fast while I was looking over a marked "scenic
| viewpoint". The driver in this case though I do not know
| if they lived. As they did go over the side of the ravine
| into very rough rocks and ground. They were alive when
| Ambulance took them away though.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside
| of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went
| to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross
| the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less
| sideways._
|
| The lesson here is this: _lightning strikes twice_
| (frustratingly, the usual idiom is as wrong as can be). In
| other words, if you observe an outcome and have no other data
| whatsoever about the conditions that produced that outcome, it
| is safe to assume that the conditions continue to exist to
| allow the outcome to happen again.
|
| In this case, the existence of a car that has spun out around a
| curve is the clue that cars will continue to spin out along
| that curve.
| j_mo wrote:
| They teach Motorsport marshals in the UK to always keep the
| car that has come off-track between yourself and live
| traffic, and never turn your back to the track.
|
| Whatever caused the accident is just as likely to cause
| another car to go in, ie oil or coolant on track, or even
| debris from the current incident.
|
| Same applies on the roads I guess, especially in poor
| conditions.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I was military police in Germany for a few months and the
| one useful thing I learned there is that when you help
| another car to always protect yourself with their car or
| your own. So always park behind the stopped car and avoid
| being in direct line of traffic.
| jstarfish wrote:
| That's police training in the US too.
|
| Also, in confrontations where you are outnumbered, keep
| one of the suspects between you and the rest. Discourages
| anybody taking a shot at you when their friend/accomplice
| is in the line of fire.
| taeric wrote:
| Is it that lightning strikes twice, or that most events are
| not as rare and in need of as much setup as a lightning
| strike?
| chaps wrote:
| It's "better safe than sorry".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| No, its "the occurrence of a rare event is an indication
| of the existence of the conditions in which that event
| occurs in that time and place, so if you have evidence
| that such an event has recently occurred, you should
| treat the place where it did as a place where that kind
| of event has an elevated likelihood of occurring", which
| is far more specific and actionable than "better safe
| than sorry".
| chaps wrote:
| This is a lovely example of HN pedanticism.
| saurik wrote:
| I think the idea for the metaphor is that, if you see
| lightning hit a tree, you shouldn't think it is so rare
| that it wouldn't hit the tree _a second time_ (as some
| people then think "lightning never strikes the same place
| twice")... it is, in fact, _so rare_ to have hit _anything
| at all_ , that it having hit that tree in the first place
| is maybe an indication that that tree is acting as some
| kind of preferential local lightning rod and it is actually
| likely to hit the same tree again.
|
| https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/amp/news/article/can-
| li...
|
| > Believe it or not, this long-held myth is far from the
| truth. While the odds of being struck by lightning are low,
| the chances of lightning striking the same place twice are
| high. Lightning can, and often will, hit the same spot
| multiple times.
| taeric wrote:
| Right, but this is different than if you see a tree that
| has clearly been hit by a bolt.
|
| That is, seeing the strike shows that things are primed
| at the moment. Seeing a singed tree is not. (That make
| sense?)
|
| That said, I can see how that still fits the idea.
| brianpan wrote:
| I think other people have sort of answered it, but a more
| general version might be:
|
| If you observe an extremely unlikely event, you should
| update your Bayesian prior about how likely that event is.
| taeric wrote:
| Makes sense. I was stuck with the idea that "seeing a car
| on the side of the road" is closer to seeing a tree that
| had been struck. Actually seeing it get struck would be
| like seeing the car actively crash.
|
| Close in thought to each other, but still different
| things. Granted, I think your point still fully holds.
| There is a decay function for the likelihood of repeating
| events. And if you don't have evidence that what you are
| looking at is old, much safer to assume it is not and
| that the circumstances are still primed for it to happen
| again.
| vasco wrote:
| One very easy application of this axiom is whenever you're
| near water or rain and don't want to get wet. You're at the
| beach, climbing on rocks and you're not sure if a wave will
| hit you if you climb on the next rock. Is the rock wet? If so
| it will, if it's dry, you're fine. You're next to a sprinkler
| system and it's going around and you don't know if you'll get
| hit if you stand here, is the floor wet? And so on.
| jehanson wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneaker_wave
| ckdot wrote:
| Until a bigger wave will hit the dry rock.
| bitexploder wrote:
| Couple of thoughts: Probably just leaking voltage, so not a
| full circuit shock, that is my first guess. Also, even wet your
| skin has high-ish resistance. It also may have traveled on the
| outside of your body to ground, path of least resistance? I
| have been bit by 120 and 240. When it is a full load it hekkin
| hurts.
| 13of40 wrote:
| Does it matter whether the light was switched on? It seems
| like the path of least resistance in that scenario would be
| the other copper wire leading out of the light socket rather
| than the high resistance person connecting to ground.
|
| I've had a similar experience, where (at the age of about 10)
| I touched an exposed 120v AC wire on a running water pump,
| while standing in a muddy field, and I only got a mild
| vibrating feeling from it.
| kragen wrote:
| ideally the hot wire is switched, and the outside of the
| edison socket connects to the neutral wire, so especially
| if the light is switched off, you're often only in a
| position to get a shock from whatever is on the neutral
| wire, which might have been what happened in the bathroom-
| fixture case
|
| commonly the neutral wire has something like 20vac rms on
| it for a variety of reasons
|
| if you are ungrounded (due to rubber boots or whatever)
| your body is in series with your capacitance to ground, and
| that will commonly give you just a mild vibrating feeling
| or nothing at all
|
| this 'path of least resistance' thing can be pretty
| misleading, because if you have two resistors in parallel,
| the least resistance is always the parallel resistance
| (i.e. current through both resistors in inverse proportion
| to their resistances) and not just one resistor or the
| other
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Does it matter whether the light was switched on?
|
| Depends on how it is wired. Sometimes lights are wired so
| that the switch comes before the fixture, sometimes after.
| One of several reasons you should always turn power off at
| the breaker when fiddling with the wiring, instead of
| assuming it won't be hot if the switch is off.
| 13of40 wrote:
| No, I mean if the switch is closed...
| [hot wire]---[switch]---[load]---.
| | [neutral wire]-------------------+
| | [person]
| | [ground]
|
| In this situation would the current "prefer" to go to
| neutral or to ground?
|
| Edit: Or this one... [neutral
| wire]---[load]---[switch]---.
| | [hot wire]---------------------------+
| | [person]
| | [ground]
|
| ...where "load" is like a 20 watt LED bulb or something.
| kragen wrote:
| this is the wrong way to think about it; the current will
| prefer to flow through both paths, which is why you can
| have a 20-watt lightbulb and a 10-watt lightbulb on the
| same circuit
|
| the parallel resistance is lower
| nucleardog wrote:
| > One of several reasons you should always turn power off
| at the breaker when fiddling with the wiring
|
| And once you've turned the power off, test wit with a
| non-contact voltage detector. A brand name one that's
| actually been built to UL/CE standards and is subject to
| actual recalls/etc is under $30. It's a straightforward,
| pretty much foolproof way to make sure you don't get
| yourself shocked.
|
| A multimeter is, in theory, a fine alternative but in
| practice is not. The non-contact detector detects the
| presence of the fluctuating magnetic field from A/C. A
| multimeter measures the difference in potential between
| two points. If you were to, say, have 120V on from same
| phase on both hot and neutral in an outlet, it would read
| 0V. If, say, the ground were also not connected then
| you'd also get 0V testing either against ground. By all
| accounts there is no voltage in the plug. If, say, each
| side of the plug were on a different breaker you might
| think you'd killed the power while it's still live. (Yes,
| this is based on a true story.) The only way to avoid
| this is to make sure you have a known good ground to test
| against. Whereas a non-contact voltage detector
| immediately lights up like a christmas tree telling you
| this situation is all sorts of fucked up.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > You really can't do worse than standing barefoot, soaking
| wet, on a stone floor, and grabbing a live fixture, can you?
|
| Would the wetness have actually helped? Why go through all that
| higher resistance human flesh when the current can go straight
| to ground via the electrolyte solution that's around you
| instead?
| Filligree wrote:
| Only really the case if the available power is limited, so
| flowing around you means the voltage drops. Otherwise it'll
| just do both. That, and wet skin has (massively) lower
| resistance than dry skin. It's unlikely to work out for you.
|
| Skin is also hydrophobic. You're unlikely to have a complete
| circuit with no breaks on the outside of your body, unless
| you're currently standing in the shower.
| pflanze wrote:
| I'd expect blood to conduct electricity much better than
| house hold water, due to higher salt content. Thus once the
| resistance of the skin has dropped because of the water on
| the skin, the path of least resistance should be through
| the inside of the body.
| peepee1982 wrote:
| I've been shocked by 230 V light fixtures twice. Both times I
| had a very similar experience as you described.
|
| My guess is that it went only through the one hand, and the
| sensation in the arm is just a side effect.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| The Ranger suggested an average one one hotel staffer a year
| would get themselves killed.
|
| If there were say 60 staff in that hotel, that gives Park
| employees a half-life of around 40 years.
|
| Don't stay in that industry too long! The demographics are
| terrible.
| Quillbert182 wrote:
| My family vacations growing up were often to National Parks, and
| Glacier is definitely my favorite.
|
| On my first trip there, when I was hiking with my family on the
| Iceberg Lake trail, a couple appeared running back towards us
| with their bear spray pointed behind them. We were at first
| concerned that they were running from a bear, but a few moments
| later, a moose appeared behind them trotting down the trail. We
| turned around and booked it back down the trail until we found a
| spot where we could get off the trail behind some trees, and the
| moose ended up turning off.
|
| That was quite a scare at the time, and it could have ended very
| poorly, but it makes for a great story now.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Ah, humans. Even when there are no cultural / group loyalty /
| greed / etc. reasons for a person to behave very differently from
| how they clearly know they should...they still tend to behave
| very differently from how they clearly know they should.
| gpapilion wrote:
| According to Jonathan Haidt in the righteous mind, western
| cultures value autonomy, so the behavior is well explained by
| this.
| NordSteve wrote:
| Many years ago, my wife and I were driving from Phoenix to
| Flagstaff AZ USA on the I-70 expressway. We encountered a
| blizzard about halfway there. Driving conditions were bad, so we
| turned around and headed back to Phoenix. We're from a snowy
| climate, so understand the dynamics of driving in slippery, snowy
| conditions -- you need to a) stay away from other vehicles and b)
| not slide off the road.
|
| Driving through the storm in darkness, we saw through heavy
| snowfall the lights of a vehicle that was obviously off the road.
| I immediately started to slow down and we were both watching the
| vehicle, which had its backup lights on, to see what it might do.
|
| Just as we arrived near the vehicle, my wife called out and I
| narrowly avoided hitting someone who was standing in the middle
| of the freeway trying to prevent vehicles from going behind their
| car.
|
| That's the closest I've ever come to killing someone with my car.
| throw827474737 wrote:
| > laughing as we chanted it on the days when we took acid and
| went swimming.
|
| WTF, even without the additional "challenges" of Yellowstone
| Lake.. I neither would nor could imagine go swimming then :o
| bioemerl wrote:
| There was recently a foot found in a pond. Lake was acidic and
| hot. Someone jumped in.
|
| Please don't fuck with nature for fun. It's all great memories,
| but one of 100 of you will die and someone else has to find
| your body and clean up your mess.
| sambapa wrote:
| That's not the kind of acid they're talking about ;)
| sva_ wrote:
| It seems to me that dropping acid and entering large bodies of
| water is not a good combination.
| cat_plus_plus wrote:
| Any optional activity has some risks and activities that are most
| fulfilling and exciting tend to have the most risk. Taking
| maximum precautions also tends to take away from fun, like flying
| commercial with an experienced pilot vs hang gliding. For me the
| takeaway is simply to weigh pros and cons of different options
| and if someone doesn't make it, it was still their choice.
|
| I once decided to climb Half Dome cables despite clouds that
| could have brought a thunderstorm and electrocuted me. On the
| other hand, I feel that 1. having had the experience of climbing
| Half Dome was a great asset to me in two decades since, 2. due to
| various life circumstances since I would probably not have come
| again later and 3. By now I am probably too old and busy with
| other priorities to manage requisite backpacking trip with two
| full days of hiking. So in retrospect, I don't regret my decision
| and, had it not worked out, well I would not be around to regret
| it. So long as one goes into things with eyes open, I am not
| going to judge.
| keyme wrote:
| Life is lived in those moments one later calls stupid shit. I
| wish I did a lot more stupid shit when I was younger.
| Animats wrote:
| I know someone who spent her twenties as an ocean lifeguard,
| including the real Baywatch, LA County Fire Department
| lifeguards. That's competitive to get in, and she's one of the
| few women to qualify. 6 feet tall, blonde, and muscular. Country
| girl who grew up on ten acres in Northern California. She spent
| years rescuing people who did stupid stuff. During the off-season
| for the beach she did off-road vehicle rescues. (Not the vehicle,
| just the driver.) She's surfed Fiji and New Zealand, and bicycled
| from Portugal to Italy alone. She's done endurance riding
| (horses) in Death Valley, and has ridden the Tevis 100 mile ride
| through the Sierras twice. Both she and the horses came back
| unharmed.
|
| She's a cautious person. She prepares and trains hard for
| everything she does. She qualified as an emergency medical
| technician (that gets you a big pay boost with LA county
| lifeguards). She's totally anti-drug. She comes across as a laid-
| back surfer girl, very relaxed, and doesn't seem competitive or
| too serious. She is, but it doesn't show.
|
| That's how you do it and not get yourself killed.
| [deleted]
| lamontcg wrote:
| I got certified as a cave diver in 2009 and I'm still alive. I
| don't break rules and keep things nice and mellow underwater.
| Same mentality as dealing with internet security or complicated
| changes in brittle codebases--think about all the edge cases.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-09 23:00 UTC)