For those who managed to miss the "Shanghai Tower" video from 2014 - this is what basically put this guy and his friend on the radar. An absolutely fantastic watch.
Incidentally, it also helped putting some much deserved light on N'to and Worakls, whose Trauma track was used for the soundtrack.
This guy is putting himself, and others, at risk. This is not romantic or fantastic in any way when accidents happen. Imagine that this guy falls or loses any object and falls over someone. This is a serious topic and it is life threatening with the only excuse of getting video views.
Frankly, if a rescuer takes some risks climbing a crane to rescue someone, then he shouldn't do it. I don't get it when people say: "he's putting rescuers at risks by getting stuck here". Climbing a crane is not complicated. Anyone with climbing and rope work can safely climb and rescue someone up there.
I would fine a world where all risks are forbidden to be very sad. I've climbed plenty of cranes and rope-swinged many bridges and viaducts. Of course it's illegal, but for me that's what brings pleasure to my life. Of course I could fall and pancake on the floor. Of course that'll cost the society. But I work, and I cycle instead of driving to work, so I suppose that I would cost the same in average.
You can ask a passerby of any of your activities if they want to be put at risk just because you are swinging from a crane, let's see if that compares with the same answer when you ask them if they want to take the risk of living in a city with car smoke. It is just not the same.
I think it's funny I got downvoted for bring up a real problem.
New Hampshire, for example, is one of the few states that can send you the bill. And good for them, because in just two years, they had over 260 stranded people and cost the state >$400,000.
That guy's kids don't have a father because someone decided to be an idiot while hiking.
It's like hiking is some sort of extended daycare program where people assume they'll be saved by heroes if anything happens so they don't take even the most basic of provisions. People have romanticized nature so much they don't realize "nature" loves to kill people who aren't careful.
Like that "into the wild" kid who went out with no real provisions or even a map... and died less than a couples miles from a ranger station with food, water, medicine, and radios. A simple map would have shown saved him. A 1 day seminar on basic survival techniques/facts would have saved him. Using his brain would have saved him.
But he didn't get in touch with nature. He committed suicide.
You don't play with a high voltage transformer unless you know what you're doing... and you don't hike into the middle of frozen hell unless you know what you're doing--unless you want to die.
>Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote:
>When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [...] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.[31]
Daredevils and other "risk takers" are not only getting themselves killed, but they're also getting search-and-rescue volunteers killed, and costing the state money that could be going to anything else.
In general, passerbys start taking photos and videos. Crane are situated in construction sites (I only go during the night or during the weekends), so if we crash, we'll only kill some ants.
As for the bridges and viaducts, there's either a river underneath (some fish may be harmed), or a plain forest.
So no, no passerby is "put at risk". The risk is very low. It seems dangerous swinging from a crane, but the gear is meant for that. Driving to work is way more dangerous.
True, but the question isn't whether there is risk, but whether it's acceptable. How does it compare to other risks we accept? We let people smoke outside where others walk by, or eat peanuts in public while some others are quite allergic, to name just two.
We used to let people smoke indoors, but that changed in some places, and you aren't allowed to smoke if the area is v enclosed. Maybe those other things will change too. Are people w nut allergies sensitive to the presence of nuts nearby?
Those are accidental risks, this one is voluntary. Also to die from second-hand smoking, while not impossible, it is a long journey of breathing cigar smoke.
Neither is voluntary in my example, unless "never going outside in a populated place" is a reasonable option. Anyway, I'm not really saying daredevilism is, or isn't, ok, just that comments saying it's a terrible risk are usually somewhat irrational, or at least inconsistent.
Maybe I expressed myself incorrectly. I am not saying that daredevilism is not ok just because it is dangerous. You can go to any inhabited area and do what you want. The problem here is using public spaces to perform your stunts. You are effectively putting others at risk in an activity that they are not taking part in voluntarily.
You're discounting developmental risks to children not encompassing a lifetime of breathing cigar smoke. To these ends even Alabama is about to forbid smoking in cars with children present.
What's the danger he's putting other in, compared to a regular person driving a car? An Honda Civic at 60km/h has more kinetic energy than an 80kg person at terminal velocity. Should we reprove every car trip taken for leisure, lest it hit someone?
OMG! Where's the video taken just moments before on the 7th floor? I know Texas isn't much for government regulations but I'd think building codes for parking garages would require, you know, barriers and walls. To keep people from driving off into oblivion.
The city, which inspects buildings after construction is complete, has no record of having inspected those cables since the garage at Brazos and East Sixth streets was finished in 1981, city spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola said
Using multiple strings of high-tension, half-inch cables as a parking lot barrier in lieu of concrete walls is increasingly common, according to an Austin structural engineer, and is listed as an acceptable alternative in city and international building standards.
Right, but 60km/h is inside the speed limit for many roads without barriers, which is why I used it as an example. In fact, if you take a slightly heftier car like a CR-V, it can be within urban speed limits (48km/h - 30mph) and still have an higher kinetic energy.
But that does not prevent them from entering a car ride with their own babies. So, yes, people know that roads are dangerous. But no one ever gives a second thought when entering a car ride, even with their own kids, even when they know nothing about the skill/ability of the driver.
Not to mention that you are literally placing the life of you and your fellow riders in the hands of every driver in the incoming traffic...I mean, think about that chance, where 1 in a 1000+ drivers you encounter is doing either one of these..
1. Texting and driving
2. Is drunk
3. Just having a very bad day..
Tell me, what is the justification for taking your family on a joy ride on a highway..
Truth is, the capitalistic society at large encourages vehicle use. That thousands of lives are lost in accidents every year is mentioned, but not highlighted. There are things that warn you about the dangers of smoking. But there are no such thing that prompts you to ask the question, "Is this ride really necessary?" when you are getting into a car.
A lot of things that we do can be attributed to just this selective shunning of society.
I'm not sure why you mention children, I think people are paranoid about child safety, but that's kind of a tangent..
Cars have all sorts of safety features, crumple zones, mandatory seat-belts etc. It's more dangerous to be hit by a car than be inside it I reckon, though car-on-car collisions would be an additional hazard to drivers.
> think about that chance, where 1 in a 1000+ drivers you encounter
is 0.001 the actual figure for that probability? larger motorways with counter-flow traffic usually have lane separators.
I'm not sure what "having a bad day" means, but drivers caught drink driving are harshly punished. also, it should be possibly to spot suspicious drivers early on in many instances.
I'd argue whether a driver who was not paying attention is likely to do anything as severe as swerve into counter-traffic harshly enough for the collision to result in severe death or injury.
> the capitalistic society at large encourages vehicle use
As opposed to what kind of society? People like driving cars even if it's not economical.
> thousands of lives are lost in accidents every year is mentioned, but not highlighted
what's that as a percentage of all car use? Dangerous or inattentive driving is the cause of most accidents; the same is not true of smoking. And generally, technology and regulation is improving.
Now apparently its drug overdose, which is one of those cases where intent (aka suicide) isn't always clear.
But by far the most dangerous thing your average american does everyday is get in a car, and that is by a large margin.
*this is why the focus on "terrorism" and "gun control" both piss me off, seatbelt, airbag, backup cameras, etc laws save more lives every month than all the terrorism related activity in the last couple decades, despite the government spending orders of magnitude more on the latter.
You've got a point, but statistically speaking this single guy is nothing in comparision with the actual real risks other people's acts put you in every single day. By getting in their car, on their bike, crossing you on stairs, flying planes above you, lighting candles in houses around you, ...
And I'm not sure if your 'but those are accidental' argument makes sense. If the guy falls or drops something it will obviously be an accident as well. Is there really a difference between what he does and me getting on my bike and riding in the presence of pedestrians? I.e. if I really wanted to I could also walk, which would reduce the risk towards others. Should I stop riding my bike for that?
Kinda feels like a false equivalence to me. Yes, as a society we all put ourselves at risk as we drive and interact. Doesn't mean I want to be an possible participant in witnessing some adrenaline addict fall off a building. I don't want to see people die horribly in auto accidents either, but that seems like a compromise to use a car, something that actually has a use for me. Nothing about random daredevil getting a dose of adrenaline benefits me personally, so out of all of the possible horrible things that can be produced from human interaction, this one doesn't seem necessary.
People driving around me by car (whether I'm by bike or car or ...) usually also don't benefit me personally. On the contrary. Also there's a ton of car driving going on which to me seems completely unnecessary (e.g. I know people driving to a store 3 times a week, and I know for a fact the products they buy would be just as good if only bought once a week, and I'm not even speaking about the extra emissions of the car). I actually know of accidents caused by people in perfect health which as such in my opinion could just as well have taken their bike out in the sunny weather to go to the bakery 1 kilometre from their house.
Apart from that, being no stranger to extreme sports and random 'weird' behaviour myself, I also think about it in another way: what this guy does is in no way beneficial to me or you but maybe it is beneficial for him. He did this already before sharing it with millions and I'm pretty sure that is not his main driving force. 'Adrenaline addiction' or whatever you want to call it is likely pretty real from him. At least it is for me. And what happens to me mentally when I don't get my shot is not nice. So yes, this behaviour is sort of necessary to be able to function normally and feel alive. Though I do try not to things which might put other people at risk.
>> Is there really a difference between what he does and me getting on my bike and riding in the presence of pedestrians?
There's a difference of scale, for sure. If you crash onto someone with your bike you won't necesarily kill them, you might not even injure them. But with what this guy is doing, one mistake means uncertain death (he will certainly die, we just don't know exactly how).
Obviously, if he hits someone on the way down, that someone is also dead on the spot. I don't think that's such a big issue though. For me it's just stupid to do something that dangerous for the fame of it, especially if you risk encouraging others doing the same.
You just know this will probably only end in one way. A simple slip and we'll no doubt see the news story. Yes sensational vertigo inducing shots but just mad.
Does anyone else get actually sweat palms just from looking at the photos? Happens to my feet as well (sandals), though not quite as bad. It's not an immediate reaction but if I take a few seconds to focus on it then it really happens -- especially so when viewing the photo of him looking down at his feet from the top of a spire.
The photos are absolutely breathtaking though, and I'm only half-way through the article, but I had to take a second to ask this question -- it's something I've been curious about before as well. =)
Video clips of Vitaliy’s escapades are watched by millions online, consistently drawing variations of the same comment: “I’m getting sweaty palms just watching this.”
Yup, and my feet and legs sort of turn to fuzz. I have pretty bad vertigo so this is what I'm like at the top of buildings etc, but it happens vicariously too. The absolute worst I ever felt was crossing the Capilano Suspension Bridge in Vancouver, by the end of which I was just a sweaty mess. Good times.
I get the same reaction watching people doing tower work. Full equipment, hardness, ropework, PPE, etc, just as gutwrenching to watch. Just interesting to know you can get the same value without someone putting their life at risk for your entertainment.
If you have nerves to see it, the video of him losing the grip and falling is available online (sorry, I won't link here) and it's nerve-wracking terrible. How he struggles to climb back, just to let go... I only saw it because I didn't know at that time that he fell to his death.
From personal (anecdotal) experience, after videos of the person from huckmagazine went viral - Shangai Tower, Hong Kong - a lot of Chinese started to do the same, plainly risking their lives to be cool.
I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, maybe that it's all awesome until someone dies.
So what? Whenever anyone dies someone has to deal with the body. Someone has to clean up the garbage we create every day, and they usually get paid for it.
Well, how about the possibility of the falling in the middle of a crowd? Should people be exposed to an exploding person raining from a skyscraper out of nowhere, long as the climber died doing what he/she loved? It would definitely ruin my day and possibly scar some people.
That possibility is so miniscule it's not worth worrying about. If you love driving fast, you are exposing everyone around you to the possibility that you make a mistake and kill someone else. Don't see how this is any different, except for the fact that it's so rare it's more of a curiosity than anything else.
This is a much better argument than the former, however this risk is inconsistent with the much more imminent risks we face every day which have been deemed acceptable to society.
Should people not be able to fly airplanes for pleasure?
You have to be licensed to fly an airplane. You have to log a flight plan. I'm not an expert in aviation but I imagine if your flight plan includes something excessively risky that endangers the lives of yourself or others, someone is going to question it.
Flight plans are essentially like driving directions, just a bit more involved. They don’t however include things like “I plan to do barrel rolls”, or “I’m going to fly inverted”, or “I’m going to bank beyond the limits of my air frame and possibly sheer off the wings”, the risky/stupid equivalent to what this guy did.
>> If the person dies doing something they love, who are we to judge?
"We" are a society who has decided, according to our morals, that preventable loss of life is tragic and we should do everything in our power to avoid it.
And why is that "judging"? The point is not to bestow some moral value on the person putting themselves in mortal dagner for "something they love". It is, rather, to stop them from needlessly and pointlessly killing themselves while at it.
Your comment expresses a certain view, that looking into others' lives and forming opinions about their choices is somehow morally wrong. An alternative view is that it's the responsible thing to do, when one lives in common with other people.
> It is, rather, to stop them from needlessly and pointlessly killing themselves while at it.
Bringing in morals is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line then?
Based on the number of times he did this is done before dying, I’d say he’s got say a 1 in 100 chance of death.
Sky divers have to sign forms repeatedly at drop zones that they understand dying is a very real risk and it’s a 1 in 20000 risk of death. For BASE jumping, risks are even higher. Should skydiving be banned too because ”preventable loss of life is tragic”?
What about car racing?
What about rock climbing?
What about <insert one of a hundred other risky “sports”>?
People died in Cirque de Soleil, climbing Everest and others. I don't think these activities should be forbidden, but I personally refuse to go to circus shows.
If we all ignore these people and their activities they might stop doing it.
Climbing everest without a guide was only banned because as the highest peak on Earth people want to climb it just for the achievement of it, not because doing it extremely dangerous - that are far worse mountains to climb in the world, ones where you are almost guaranteed to die, and it's perfectly legal for anyone to just go and try. My point is - legality of doing something shouldn't be correlated with the dangerousness of doing it(except where others can be harmed, of course).
There is a similar discussion in the rock climbing community about free soloing, which is climbing without any sort of safety gear except climbing shoes and chalk. Its foremost practicioner is Alex Honnold, and he produces some amazing photos:
But a sizable chunk of the climbing community is against publicizing of free solos. Some think it will encourage others, some think the practicioners are irresponsible -- not so much for risking their own lives as commanding rescue resources if they mess up but don't fall and need rescue. Sponsors have an uncertain relationship with the whole thing.
I personally think it's fine to publicize free soloing, and the original post here as well. Watching a skilled practicioner like Honnold do it is a unique experience [1] and remarkable just like any demonstration of skill and athleticism in a very high-stakes environment, except perhaps more so.
The fact that there is apparently a subset of less-prepared people interested in copying these stunts is unfortunate. A compromise might be to cover the level of preparation that goes into these things rather than just shots of tennis shoes dangling off a crane -- Honnold has said he only started soloing after thousands of hours of climbing -- but in general this is one of those things where the risk is so obvious that I think publicizing it is not really irresponsible.
The same discussion is going on with lots of sports from winguit flying to football.
I do wonder if pointing at some people's lack of preparedness or skill is misleading. These choices carry significant risk, regardless of skill. Very experienced mountaineers die every year. Skydivers and base jumpers with decades of experience have accidents. (I knew some, before I chose to stop skydiving.)
Suggesting that "experience" will make you safer leaves one with the obvious question of how to gain that experience. It also ignores the fact that more participation in any risky activity is more exposure; the longer you do it, the more likely you are to have an accident.
To elaborate on my suggestion of emphasizing the experience of people who participate in dangerous activities: the goal would be to communicate that experience is necessary (not sufficient) for safety. I agree that these activities have some constant fraction of risk you can't remove.
I'm 100% with you that preparedness and awareness and skill and experience improve your odds and are good things. But if you want true risk awareness, you must know that experience only improves your odds a small amount compared to the time spent participating in the activity. And, like I said, you still have to gain that experience. Everyone who's experienced went through taking those risks when they were less experienced. Many survived because of luck, not because of experience.
Consider it this way: half of all drivers in auto collisions weren't at fault for the accident. You can be the best/safest driver in the world, and you might only reduce your odds of an accident by half. You can beat that easily by cutting your driving to 40%, or eliminate the chance of dying in a car crash by not driving (which might involve an alternative activity that carries it's own risks.)
There are similar factors that are out of your control in most risky activities. In rock climbing, there are loose and sharp and slippery grips, there is weather and equipment, and there are often people on the other end of your rope. There are a lot of potential failure points that skill simply doesn't eliminate, whereas time spent in an activity always compounds the risk.
Skydive once in a year and you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying. If you make 100 jumps in a year, your chances multiply to 1 in 1,000. There is no amount of skill that will overcome the compounded risk of prolonged exposure to an inherently risky activity.
I agree with your greater point, but your auto collision example is flawed.
If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume only one person can be at fault. Most collisions involve more than one mistake, and it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds by much better than half (there is more to defensive driving than just not making obvious mistakes.) This is not to claim, of course, that perfection is possible. Sometimes the chips are all stacked against you and there is nothing reasonable you can do.
> If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume only one person can be at fault.
You're absolutely right; there are at least some collisions that are the fault of both/multiple drivers, or of no drivers. I did assume that fault is most often one driver in two-car collisions (and I still think that), but I shouldn't have stated it as fact, I was thinking of it as the premise of the subsequent point. My apologies.
> Most collisions involve more than one mistake
That's a strong claim you're making. Citation needed.
> it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds by much better than half
Of course. Single vehicle crashes are already more than half. 30% of all car fatalities have been attributed to drunk driving. Don't ever get in a car after drinking, and your odds are already much better. Another 30% of car deaths occur when speeding. Stay under the limit, and your odds are that much better again.
I hope you can see that I wasn't claiming that half is the actual limit, I was making a point about the arithmetic of probabilities. My point is that if factors out of your control are responsible for x% of crashes, then the maximum upper limit of good you can do by honing your skill and being the best driver in the world is 100-x%. The point is there's an upper bound to what training and preparedness can do for you, and that upper bound can always be exceeded by avoiding the risk in the first place.
i think there's a big difference between football and wingsuit BASE jumping.
Football is "accepted" as safe to do by children and parents are expected to purchase expensive gear and are left in the dark about potential for long term injury.
nobody is sending their kids out to BASE jumping school before they are 18 and can make their own decisions.
You're right; there is indeed a large risk difference between football and base jumping. Though it has recently come to light (in the public consciousness) that football carries significant risk of concussion and CTE with prolonged exposure. As a parent, and having talked to many parents about this, football is not as widely accepted as being safe as it was ten years ago.
That said, this has no bearing on my point above. It doesn't matter whether society has deemed some activity safe or not. What I'm saying is that skill and preparedness is a secondary factor in how much risk you bear for any sport or activity. The primary risk factor is how much exposure you have to the activity, how long you choose to do it. This is as true of walking on the sidewalk as it is of playing Russian Roulette.
At least WRT to the cycling thing, I can add some color. They aren't normalizing the rate of injury to the rate of participation. Certainly, the mountain bike industry is growing, and a greater number of people doing it guarantees greater numbers of injuries.
The big question is whether this is really a problem. People have always done big stunts, and always died doing them. At some level, it should be for an individual to decide what risks they want to take, especially in the case of outdoor sports where the risks are more easily contained to only include the participant (unlike driving cars too fast, for example). I'm not sure there is a right answer.
I know this is editorializing, but I can't help but think that the relative increases in safety all around us also increase the need for that "risk outlet". Danger and adrenaline are parts of a natural state of being, but we don't encounter wild animals or suffer privation much anymore. Video games might sate that urge, but, for some people it isn't enough. When those people film themselves, they may not only be fulfilling their own need for risk taking, but providing an outlet for others' which creates a feedback loop of fandom, and pushes the drive toward risk. Those athletes that are unwilling to participate in that part of the bargain face difficulty getting sponsorships, views, and to make a living.
Social media challenges what it means to "be a professional", where the assumption is that you are good enough to evaluate the risks you are taking, vs just having a gopro, where the only barrier is whether you are entertaining enough to watch. Stories like that in the GP article are ones that put special credence to that distinction. Vitaliy became a pro while on camera. The fact is that we never used to see the progression until after it had happened - when an athlete was already a pro. Now we do.
In my opinion there is humanistic / philosophical difference between somebody risking his life purely for the experience (Honnold does not care for Instagram fame) and somebody for who this is a way to promote him/herself to satisfy narcissistic desires. If you are passionate for something I think it is fine to take risks - this Chinese daredevil was just a bit stupid and a victim of his personality flaws. If Honnold dies climbing - well, that would be very, very sad but that's just that then.
Can this really be put in the same league as what a free solo climber is doing? Most man-made structures are designed to be climbable, with safety gear, for people to maintenance. Rock climbing, on the other hand, forces one to sort out a way to make the climb.
As far as having a "head" for heights, I would agree that free solo climbing and climbing buildings is similar. I wonder how well this guy would do on real rock?
On a personal note, heights above which I will die from the fall are all the same. 100 feet or 1000 feet are all the same. Now between 20 and about 50 feet, that is where it is scary. That is if I don't have a reasonable backup such as deep water or a rope.
Perhaps not for this Russian climber as he says he specifically avoids doing any "one-arm pullups" and "superman-like stunts." However, the other daredevils like now-deceased Wu -- died doing a pullup from a building ledge -- he couldn't pull himself back up and then fell and died. So yes, buildings can be considerably safer if one avoids doing the ridiculous stunts.
You are right that climbing buildings is not directly comparable to free soloing rock. Each has things that make it easier or harder.
Rock isn't "meant" to be climbed, but the vast majority of free solo climbs occur after extensive roped rehearsals. Some people do "onsight"/climb without practicing with ropes first, but this is rare, and is essentially only done when the route in question is known to be easy.
Buildings are more predictable and regular, but these guys seem to be onsighting everything they do, which is mentally very different.
I don't have any issue at all with people doing what they love. I am just slightly worried about him putting others to risk, should he fall and possibly hit someone. Anyone feeling the same?
Besides that, do whatever you want, even if I don't agree with it or its motivations. I am not the ruler of the world.
People tend to get overly emotional with these subjects because they usually project themselves onto their opinions and if they get a nasty rebuttal, they feel it like a personal attack or w/e. Being brutally honest: It's his body and will and he's free to do whatever he wants with it, except harm others without their consent.
The first time I saw the shanghi tower video, I actually thought he was going to BASE jump because he initially had a backpack on.
But, many of these situations guys are putting themselves in wouldn't be helped by a parachute. If they fall close to the structure getting the chute to open is going to be a problem.
I don't agree. We stop people from doing dangerous things all the time: we signpost dangerous substances or locations (like high voltage rooms), we have rules for safe driving and safe crossing of traffic, we control the trading of toxic substances and lethal weapons and so on.
You don't have to be "the ruler of the world" to be interested in protecting people form themselves. It's more like a moral responsibility that we have to each other. And something that comes natural to many people too- for instance, if someone walks too close to the edge of a building etc, someone's always likely to yell out "be careful" or someting along those lines.
And for good reason. People just want to protect each other. That's nothing to do with curtailing personal freedoms, or trying to rule it over each other. It's much more to do with caring about each other.
Honestly I'm fine with people risking their lives, as long as they foot the bill when they need a harrowing rescue. It can cost high hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a single person out of a bind, it should not be anyone else's responsibility to pay for one person's high-risk behaviours (at least not after the fact).
If you knowingly engage in an impractical behaviour which makes the need for a rescue likely, and don't bring your own staff and equipment to reasonably expect to achieve that, then you should be liable when you consent or would inevitably consent to rescue.
87 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 169 ms ] threadIncidentally, it also helped putting some much deserved light on N'to and Worakls, whose Trauma track was used for the soundtrack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLDYtH1RH-U
In brand identity terms, what this guy is doing is supposed to be more Instagram than Red Bull.
I would fine a world where all risks are forbidden to be very sad. I've climbed plenty of cranes and rope-swinged many bridges and viaducts. Of course it's illegal, but for me that's what brings pleasure to my life. Of course I could fall and pancake on the floor. Of course that'll cost the society. But I work, and I cycle instead of driving to work, so I suppose that I would cost the same in average.
New Hampshire, for example, is one of the few states that can send you the bill. And good for them, because in just two years, they had over 260 stranded people and cost the state >$400,000.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-o...
Cost is a known issue. Additionally sometimes search and responders die trying to rescue them.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washing...
That guy's kids don't have a father because someone decided to be an idiot while hiking.
It's like hiking is some sort of extended daycare program where people assume they'll be saved by heroes if anything happens so they don't take even the most basic of provisions. People have romanticized nature so much they don't realize "nature" loves to kill people who aren't careful.
Like that "into the wild" kid who went out with no real provisions or even a map... and died less than a couples miles from a ranger station with food, water, medicine, and radios. A simple map would have shown saved him. A 1 day seminar on basic survival techniques/facts would have saved him. Using his brain would have saved him.
But he didn't get in touch with nature. He committed suicide.
You don't play with a high voltage transformer unless you know what you're doing... and you don't hike into the middle of frozen hell unless you know what you're doing--unless you want to die.
>Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote:
>When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [...] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.[31]
Daredevils and other "risk takers" are not only getting themselves killed, but they're also getting search-and-rescue volunteers killed, and costing the state money that could be going to anything else.
As for the bridges and viaducts, there's either a river underneath (some fish may be harmed), or a plain forest.
So no, no passerby is "put at risk". The risk is very low. It seems dangerous swinging from a crane, but the gear is meant for that. Driving to work is way more dangerous.
Some, yes.
The city, which inspects buildings after construction is complete, has no record of having inspected those cables since the garage at Brazos and East Sixth streets was finished in 1981, city spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola said
Using multiple strings of high-tension, half-inch cables as a parking lot barrier in lieu of concrete walls is increasingly common, according to an Austin structural engineer, and is listed as an acceptable alternative in city and international building standards.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local/year-old-cables-played...
Given the pleasure he's given millions, approximately on par with an ice creams I'd say.....
One million cars off to get ice cream pass by and don't mount the curb and kill you.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/winter-weather...
Cranes toppling is also not that uncommon of an occurrence.
Not to mention that you are literally placing the life of you and your fellow riders in the hands of every driver in the incoming traffic...I mean, think about that chance, where 1 in a 1000+ drivers you encounter is doing either one of these..
1. Texting and driving 2. Is drunk 3. Just having a very bad day..
Tell me, what is the justification for taking your family on a joy ride on a highway..
Truth is, the capitalistic society at large encourages vehicle use. That thousands of lives are lost in accidents every year is mentioned, but not highlighted. There are things that warn you about the dangers of smoking. But there are no such thing that prompts you to ask the question, "Is this ride really necessary?" when you are getting into a car.
A lot of things that we do can be attributed to just this selective shunning of society.
Cars have all sorts of safety features, crumple zones, mandatory seat-belts etc. It's more dangerous to be hit by a car than be inside it I reckon, though car-on-car collisions would be an additional hazard to drivers.
> think about that chance, where 1 in a 1000+ drivers you encounter
is 0.001 the actual figure for that probability? larger motorways with counter-flow traffic usually have lane separators.
I'm not sure what "having a bad day" means, but drivers caught drink driving are harshly punished. also, it should be possibly to spot suspicious drivers early on in many instances.
I'd argue whether a driver who was not paying attention is likely to do anything as severe as swerve into counter-traffic harshly enough for the collision to result in severe death or injury.
> the capitalistic society at large encourages vehicle use
As opposed to what kind of society? People like driving cars even if it's not economical.
> thousands of lives are lost in accidents every year is mentioned, but not highlighted
what's that as a percentage of all car use? Dangerous or inattentive driving is the cause of most accidents; the same is not true of smoking. And generally, technology and regulation is improving.
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10lcid_all_deaths_by_...
And the largest part of that has until recently been car accidents (comprising the larger transportation related catagory)
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/164522/20160612/car-crashe...
Now apparently its drug overdose, which is one of those cases where intent (aka suicide) isn't always clear.
But by far the most dangerous thing your average american does everyday is get in a car, and that is by a large margin.
*this is why the focus on "terrorism" and "gun control" both piss me off, seatbelt, airbag, backup cameras, etc laws save more lives every month than all the terrorism related activity in the last couple decades, despite the government spending orders of magnitude more on the latter.
> by far the most dangerous thing your average american does everyday is get in a car, and that is by a large margin
Not true if the frequency is ignored. Landmines kill fewer Americans, but stepping on one is more dangerous than stepping in a car.
And I'm not sure if your 'but those are accidental' argument makes sense. If the guy falls or drops something it will obviously be an accident as well. Is there really a difference between what he does and me getting on my bike and riding in the presence of pedestrians? I.e. if I really wanted to I could also walk, which would reduce the risk towards others. Should I stop riding my bike for that?
People driving around me by car (whether I'm by bike or car or ...) usually also don't benefit me personally. On the contrary. Also there's a ton of car driving going on which to me seems completely unnecessary (e.g. I know people driving to a store 3 times a week, and I know for a fact the products they buy would be just as good if only bought once a week, and I'm not even speaking about the extra emissions of the car). I actually know of accidents caused by people in perfect health which as such in my opinion could just as well have taken their bike out in the sunny weather to go to the bakery 1 kilometre from their house.
Apart from that, being no stranger to extreme sports and random 'weird' behaviour myself, I also think about it in another way: what this guy does is in no way beneficial to me or you but maybe it is beneficial for him. He did this already before sharing it with millions and I'm pretty sure that is not his main driving force. 'Adrenaline addiction' or whatever you want to call it is likely pretty real from him. At least it is for me. And what happens to me mentally when I don't get my shot is not nice. So yes, this behaviour is sort of necessary to be able to function normally and feel alive. Though I do try not to things which might put other people at risk.
There's a difference of scale, for sure. If you crash onto someone with your bike you won't necesarily kill them, you might not even injure them. But with what this guy is doing, one mistake means uncertain death (he will certainly die, we just don't know exactly how).
Obviously, if he hits someone on the way down, that someone is also dead on the spot. I don't think that's such a big issue though. For me it's just stupid to do something that dangerous for the fame of it, especially if you risk encouraging others doing the same.
The photos are absolutely breathtaking though, and I'm only half-way through the article, but I had to take a second to ask this question -- it's something I've been curious about before as well. =)
(Mind you, same thing happens if I look down the 5 storey stairwell at Waterstones Piccadilly. Or playing that damned bridge section in Half Life 2.)
From the article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/11...
If you have nerves to see it, the video of him losing the grip and falling is available online (sorry, I won't link here) and it's nerve-wracking terrible. How he struggles to climb back, just to let go... I only saw it because I didn't know at that time that he fell to his death.
From personal (anecdotal) experience, after videos of the person from huckmagazine went viral - Shangai Tower, Hong Kong - a lot of Chinese started to do the same, plainly risking their lives to be cool.
I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, maybe that it's all awesome until someone dies.
Someone dies every 500ms around the world. It’s tragic, but it happens. If the person dies doing something they love, who are we to judge?
Should people not be able to fly airplanes for pleasure?
"We" are a society who has decided, according to our morals, that preventable loss of life is tragic and we should do everything in our power to avoid it.
And why is that "judging"? The point is not to bestow some moral value on the person putting themselves in mortal dagner for "something they love". It is, rather, to stop them from needlessly and pointlessly killing themselves while at it.
Your comment expresses a certain view, that looking into others' lives and forming opinions about their choices is somehow morally wrong. An alternative view is that it's the responsible thing to do, when one lives in common with other people.
Bringing in morals is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line then?
Based on the number of times he did this is done before dying, I’d say he’s got say a 1 in 100 chance of death.
Sky divers have to sign forms repeatedly at drop zones that they understand dying is a very real risk and it’s a 1 in 20000 risk of death. For BASE jumping, risks are even higher. Should skydiving be banned too because ”preventable loss of life is tragic”?
What about car racing?
What about rock climbing?
What about <insert one of a hundred other risky “sports”>?
https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008...
But a sizable chunk of the climbing community is against publicizing of free solos. Some think it will encourage others, some think the practicioners are irresponsible -- not so much for risking their own lives as commanding rescue resources if they mess up but don't fall and need rescue. Sponsors have an uncertain relationship with the whole thing.
I personally think it's fine to publicize free soloing, and the original post here as well. Watching a skilled practicioner like Honnold do it is a unique experience [1] and remarkable just like any demonstration of skill and athleticism in a very high-stakes environment, except perhaps more so.
The fact that there is apparently a subset of less-prepared people interested in copying these stunts is unfortunate. A compromise might be to cover the level of preparation that goes into these things rather than just shots of tennis shoes dangling off a crane -- Honnold has said he only started soloing after thousands of hours of climbing -- but in general this is one of those things where the risk is so obvious that I think publicizing it is not really irresponsible.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk
I do wonder if pointing at some people's lack of preparedness or skill is misleading. These choices carry significant risk, regardless of skill. Very experienced mountaineers die every year. Skydivers and base jumpers with decades of experience have accidents. (I knew some, before I chose to stop skydiving.)
Suggesting that "experience" will make you safer leaves one with the obvious question of how to gain that experience. It also ignores the fact that more participation in any risky activity is more exposure; the longer you do it, the more likely you are to have an accident.
Consider it this way: half of all drivers in auto collisions weren't at fault for the accident. You can be the best/safest driver in the world, and you might only reduce your odds of an accident by half. You can beat that easily by cutting your driving to 40%, or eliminate the chance of dying in a car crash by not driving (which might involve an alternative activity that carries it's own risks.)
There are similar factors that are out of your control in most risky activities. In rock climbing, there are loose and sharp and slippery grips, there is weather and equipment, and there are often people on the other end of your rope. There are a lot of potential failure points that skill simply doesn't eliminate, whereas time spent in an activity always compounds the risk.
Skydive once in a year and you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying. If you make 100 jumps in a year, your chances multiply to 1 in 1,000. There is no amount of skill that will overcome the compounded risk of prolonged exposure to an inherently risky activity.
If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume only one person can be at fault. Most collisions involve more than one mistake, and it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds by much better than half (there is more to defensive driving than just not making obvious mistakes.) This is not to claim, of course, that perfection is possible. Sometimes the chips are all stacked against you and there is nothing reasonable you can do.
You're absolutely right; there are at least some collisions that are the fault of both/multiple drivers, or of no drivers. I did assume that fault is most often one driver in two-car collisions (and I still think that), but I shouldn't have stated it as fact, I was thinking of it as the premise of the subsequent point. My apologies.
> Most collisions involve more than one mistake
That's a strong claim you're making. Citation needed.
Here are some resources:
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalit...
> it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds by much better than half
Of course. Single vehicle crashes are already more than half. 30% of all car fatalities have been attributed to drunk driving. Don't ever get in a car after drinking, and your odds are already much better. Another 30% of car deaths occur when speeding. Stay under the limit, and your odds are that much better again.
I hope you can see that I wasn't claiming that half is the actual limit, I was making a point about the arithmetic of probabilities. My point is that if factors out of your control are responsible for x% of crashes, then the maximum upper limit of good you can do by honing your skill and being the best driver in the world is 100-x%. The point is there's an upper bound to what training and preparedness can do for you, and that upper bound can always be exceeded by avoiding the risk in the first place.
Football is "accepted" as safe to do by children and parents are expected to purchase expensive gear and are left in the dark about potential for long term injury.
nobody is sending their kids out to BASE jumping school before they are 18 and can make their own decisions.
That said, this has no bearing on my point above. It doesn't matter whether society has deemed some activity safe or not. What I'm saying is that skill and preparedness is a secondary factor in how much risk you bear for any sport or activity. The primary risk factor is how much exposure you have to the activity, how long you choose to do it. This is as true of walking on the sidewalk as it is of playing Russian Roulette.
However, it only takes a brief tour through historic red bull rampage footage to see that gear is getting a lot more capable, and the stunts are getting huge. Watch Kelly McGarry's backflip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Mr9Z1fhtE) or Semenuk's big step-downs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqY3LBawDXc).
The big question is whether this is really a problem. People have always done big stunts, and always died doing them. At some level, it should be for an individual to decide what risks they want to take, especially in the case of outdoor sports where the risks are more easily contained to only include the participant (unlike driving cars too fast, for example). I'm not sure there is a right answer.
I know this is editorializing, but I can't help but think that the relative increases in safety all around us also increase the need for that "risk outlet". Danger and adrenaline are parts of a natural state of being, but we don't encounter wild animals or suffer privation much anymore. Video games might sate that urge, but, for some people it isn't enough. When those people film themselves, they may not only be fulfilling their own need for risk taking, but providing an outlet for others' which creates a feedback loop of fandom, and pushes the drive toward risk. Those athletes that are unwilling to participate in that part of the bargain face difficulty getting sponsorships, views, and to make a living.
Social media challenges what it means to "be a professional", where the assumption is that you are good enough to evaluate the risks you are taking, vs just having a gopro, where the only barrier is whether you are entertaining enough to watch. Stories like that in the GP article are ones that put special credence to that distinction. Vitaliy became a pro while on camera. The fact is that we never used to see the progression until after it had happened - when an athlete was already a pro. Now we do.
As far as having a "head" for heights, I would agree that free solo climbing and climbing buildings is similar. I wonder how well this guy would do on real rock?
On a personal note, heights above which I will die from the fall are all the same. 100 feet or 1000 feet are all the same. Now between 20 and about 50 feet, that is where it is scary. That is if I don't have a reasonable backup such as deep water or a rope.
Rock isn't "meant" to be climbed, but the vast majority of free solo climbs occur after extensive roped rehearsals. Some people do "onsight"/climb without practicing with ropes first, but this is rare, and is essentially only done when the route in question is known to be easy.
Buildings are more predictable and regular, but these guys seem to be onsighting everything they do, which is mentally very different.
https://www.climbing.com/news/decking-while-soloing/
Besides that, do whatever you want, even if I don't agree with it or its motivations. I am not the ruler of the world.
People tend to get overly emotional with these subjects because they usually project themselves onto their opinions and if they get a nasty rebuttal, they feel it like a personal attack or w/e. Being brutally honest: It's his body and will and he's free to do whatever he wants with it, except harm others without their consent.
o/
But, many of these situations guys are putting themselves in wouldn't be helped by a parachute. If they fall close to the structure getting the chute to open is going to be a problem.
You don't have to be "the ruler of the world" to be interested in protecting people form themselves. It's more like a moral responsibility that we have to each other. And something that comes natural to many people too- for instance, if someone walks too close to the edge of a building etc, someone's always likely to yell out "be careful" or someting along those lines.
And for good reason. People just want to protect each other. That's nothing to do with curtailing personal freedoms, or trying to rule it over each other. It's much more to do with caring about each other.
If you knowingly engage in an impractical behaviour which makes the need for a rescue likely, and don't bring your own staff and equipment to reasonably expect to achieve that, then you should be liable when you consent or would inevitably consent to rescue.