This is just crazy...riding on the edge at the Grand Canyon

[fuzzalow]

I don't have a problem with what this guy does. It's a free country - even to the point of borderline illegality. Just don't get caught. Or if he does, don't whine about it and get outta jail and do it all over again.

Whatever it takes to find meaning in life is OK with me even if I don't get it 'cos even if I don't get the activity I do get the desire.

[marciero]

Originally Posted by Dead Man

No... odds are overwhelmingly that dangerous sports won't kill their participants. As someone who engages in a couple of "high-risk" hobbies, I've known hundreds of people who accept risk, use their experience and skill to mitigate the risk, and live long very healthy lives.

I'd be interested to know if this is true. Would still be anecdotal, but do you really know hundreds of old base jumpers, wing-suiters, etc? I remember reading an article in Outside years ago where one alpinist was lamenting that the mountains had gradually taken all her friends. I think would undoubtedly depend on the activity. Fatalities in some activities are due to things beyond the participant's control. To me this is different than what Brumotti is doing.


The study that akelman cites does not apply here. I dont think we are talking about skateboarding, snowboarding, skiing, surfing, motocross, etc. Those are actual "sports" that have lots of crashes and injuries but very little chance of death.


To me, bunny-hopping a bike is not that impressive. Lots of people seem to be able to do it. What Brumotti is doing is striking and impressive not for the skill (though I sure cant do it!) but for the potential consequences and his ability to manage his fear.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by akelman

Tell yourself whatever you want. Truly, so long as you're not riding illegally in one of the National Parks or some other public space where you might need to be rescued by someone whose time can better be spent helping people who aren't adrenaline junkies, I'm not going to judge you. That said, the data are clear: extreme sports are risky. Here's just one relatively recent study. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of others that say the same thing. Again, though, those risks are 100% yours to take -- so long as you don't try to offload the consequences onto other people.

Speaking of which, don't fool yourself into thinking that the fact that "search and rescue volunteers love missions" means they don't look at talented glory seekers/publicity hounds like Brumotti with anything but contempt. He's not just taking a risk; he's putting other people at risk. I have friends who are backcountry rangers in National Parks. I have friends who are smoke jumpers in the Rockies. I have friends who are paramedics in big cities. All of them love their jobs. All of them are, to some extent, risk takers themselves. But every single one of them has nothing but scorn for people who intentionally put themselves in harm's way and then need to be bailed out.

Where is the line drawn then when we look at the level of risk that you would deem acceptable? We all put ourselves in harms way and we do not always have self rescue plans nor can we. I would argue that every ride might fall into this category, certainly MTB rides. I know risk and harm well as I frequently travel and guide in very remote wild areas in the north of Canada and also teach people how to assess and mitigate risk in these environs. The people that deserve scorn are those that are untrained, unprepared, and inexperienced and go for it knowing this. It is those that go ahead out of ignorance that I feel bad for, they just don't know and end up in trouble before they even realize it. Are you suggesting that the rider in the video is all of these things? If the odds of him falling is 0.01% and the odds of an average hiker getting injured is 0.01% is he such a menace? Everyone here is assuming that they know the level of risk that he is taking. Unless you can do what he does you do not know the risk. He knows the risk and we can assume that he does not want to die on any given day. Can he make a bad choice that can turn things pear shaped; certainly. So can Ted from accounting when he takes a walk in the canyon on well marked trails during his 2 week vacation. Risk is fluid and hard to judge effectively without the prerequisite expertise that those who ply a particular activity have. A lot of people here are looking at this from their own perspective and deciding that this is reckless because it would be if they were doing it.

[akelman]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Where is the line drawn then when we look at the level of risk that you would deem acceptable? We all put ourselves in harms way and we do not always have self rescue plans nor can we. I would argue that every ride might fall into this category, certainly MTB rides. I know risk and harm well as I frequently travel and guide in very remote wild areas in the north of Canada and also teach people how to assess and mitigate risk in these environs. The people that deserve scorn are those that are untrained, unprepared, and inexperienced and go for it knowing this, this that go ahead out of ignorance I feel bad for, they just don't know and end up in trouble before they even realize it. Are you suggesting that the rider in the video is all of these things? If the odds of him falling is 0.01% and the odds of an average hiker getting injured is 0.01% is he such a menace? Everyone here is assuming that they know the level of risk that he is taking. Unless you can do what he does you do not know the risk. He knows the risk and we can assume that he does not want to die on any given day. Can he make a bad choice that can turn things pear shaped; certainly. So can Ted from accounting when he takes a walk in the canyon on well marked trails during his 2 week vacation. Risk is fluid and hard to judge effectively without the prerequisite expertise that those who ply a particular activity have. A lot of people here are looking at this from their own perspective and deciding that this is reckless because it would be if they were doing it.

You're talking about differences of both degree and kind. As you said above, every time I go for a ride, I definitely incur some risk. But the thing is, I do my best to limit that risk. I wear a helmet, I ride legally (mostly), I keep my equipment in decent shape, and I try hard to know my limits.

On that last point, knowing one's limits, it's true that the friends I mentioned above also scorn weekend warriors who get in over their heads in the backcountry. But while I don't have data about which is riskier -- extreme sports or hiking -- I can guess the results. Add in that people who are out hiking very rarely film themselves in the hopes of generating lots of page views, and I'm even more confident that they're doing fewer things that will have potentially life-threatening consequences.

Again, though, I'm not trying to change your mind about your appetite for risk. I think you should, within reason, seek thrills. So long as you're not engaging in illegal activities, so long as your activities won't put others in harm's way, and so long as you're not destroying public resources, you should 100% (again, within reason) do whatever you want with the time you have on this earth.

[josephr]

Originally Posted by Dead Man

Negative. Search and rescue volunteers love missions. You think they'd rather be sitting at home or something? Yea, it's often emotionally difficult to work "recoveries," rather than rescues... or rescue missions that then become recoveries- but that's the job. It's what they love. It's what they signed up for, are trained for, and are passionate about.

Likewise, the cost to rescue or recover is negligible. National guard helicopters patrol and do training exercises all the time. They can burn fuel doing that, which becomes rather mundane after a while, or they can get called out to assist on S&R missions and do REAL work... receiving the same salary and burning the same fuel they normally would. Overtime pay for paid LE S&R costs some, but it's a standard service that's provided to the public that's paying them to provide diverse service, and is budgeted for. Lost kids at campgrounds, injured hikers, lost hunters make up the bulk of those missions... climbing accidents and other higher risk activities much less so. But they're just as entitled to those services as everyone else. and often times, they take less manpower and resources than the more run of the mill mission, because a lot of the time all you need is one bird and 3 crew members to pluck a body/injured climber off the side of a mountain - versus the dozens or even hundreds often called out to search for kids in the woods. For days.

and even as someone with some experience in risky sport risk assessment, I couldn't even begin to tell you how seriously he's taking his personal safety... what are your qualifications to make that call?

Frustrating misconceptions abound, on this topic.

Sorry....but this is biggest bullcrap in the history of this forum. No one enjoys having to scrape someone off the side of the mountain nor piece anyone together after an physically traumatic event caused by one's own under-estimation of their skills. Emergency rooms and rescue units are busy enough without another idiot adding to the caseload. More often than not, those rescue costs are burdened by the taxpayers and the medical costs, if covered by insurance, are reflected in higher insurance rates. They're not carried by the individuals who've taken those risks and failed.

Additionally, calling out another forum member on their qualifications to express an opinion is an inflammatory tactic. An apology is due.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by josephr

Sorry....but this is biggest bullcrap in the history of this forum. No one enjoys having to scrape someone off the side of the mountain nor piece anyone together after an physically traumatic event caused by one's own under-estimation of their skills. Emergency rooms and rescue units are busy enough without another idiot adding to the caseload. More often than not, those rescue costs are burdened by the taxpayers and the medical costs, if covered by insurance, are reflected in higher insurance rates. They're not carried by the individuals who've taken those risks and failed.

Additionally, calling out another forum member on their qualifications to express an opinion is an inflammatory tactic. An apology is due.

Bravo. Correct on all counts.

Nice to hear sane, adult feedback from somebody who has their head on straight and can see beyond vulgar self interest that obliterates any perspective beyond a life view directly in line with their own id.

P.S. The idea that is catching flak here: that carnage is a welcome event because it keeps emergency response crews busy with something to do rather than just the boredom of just sitting around waiting for the klaxon is, well, stupendous. And I can't help but feel that somebody's pulling my leg here, that nobody could possibly be that indecent, offensive or self obsessed that this thought could be put out there in seriousness - maybe just a puerile, moronic joke said and DOA as a joke. Gotta be, nobody's that...

Then again, gotta consider the source.