A daredevil climber risking his life for breathtaking views
huckmagazine.com
huckmagazine.com
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.
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.
Incidentally, it also helped putting some much deserved light on N'to and Worakls, whose Trauma track was used for the soundtrack.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
In brand identity terms, what this guy is doing is supposed to be more Instagram than Red Bull.