Todd,
That idea has been considered a number of times by the CAA and others. The current thinking is that it is too complex an issue to boil it down to a single word. Also the context can be taken wrong. For the resort it would not serve them well to have the access rd. proclaim the avi danger is extreme. Where does the sign relate too? Also when the avi danger drops to Moderate or Low does that mean green light rip it up ? Not always. The CAA bulletin does boil it out to a category but included is all the text and info. There are changes as well coming to the CAA bulletins to describe Hazard as a combination of both likely hood of triggering and the consequences. Putting roadside avi danger signs out has been determined to present as many pitfalls as possible benefits. I agree it would increase overall awareness of avalanche hazards in general, however it could also give the uninitiated a false sense of security.
Submitted by trailhead on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 10:52am
Posts: 160
Joined: 17-06-2007
[quote=Binski]
The current thinking is that it is too complex an issue to boil it down to a single word.
[/quote]
Then why have a rating system at all? I agree that the rating system is complex and not as intuitive as a simple Low, Med, High, Extreme rating. But the CAA created the rating system so why not use it? The avalanche ratings are widely broadcast on radio and TV, so why not on a roadside sign?
[quote=Binski]
Also the context can be taken wrong. For the resort it would not serve them well to have the access rd. proclaim the avi danger is extreme. Where does the sign relate too?
[/quote]
Simply adding the prefix "Backcountry" to the avalanche hazard rating would clear up any ambiguity for the ski hill. But why is the fire hazard sign even on the ski hill rd.? In most communities the fire hazard sign is on a main road or highway where it's more visible to the general public.
[quote=Binski]Also when the avi danger drops to Moderate or Low does that mean green light rip it up ? [/quote]
A possible misinterpretation of the rating isn't a reason to not use it. As I said, the rating is widely broadcast in other media. Are drivers who see a sign more likely to be careless than the radio/TV audience that hears a 10 second avalanche report on the news?
[/quote]
[quote=Binski]Putting roadside avi danger signs out has been determined to present as many pitfalls as possible benefits. I agree it would increase overall awareness of avalanche hazards in general, however it could also give the uninitiated a false sense of security. [/quote]
If that's the case then the CAA should stop all public broadcasts of the avalanche hazard rating, because they may be misunderstood. Either you want awareness of the current rating or you don't. The roadside sign could provide more immediate and local condition information than a radio or TV news report.
the reports are too complex to be on a simple sign with four or five levels. you have aspect. you have elevation. you have the combination of aspect and elevation. and you have changing conditions through the course of a day.
leave it for fires and make people go to the CAA site to read the reports and make a measured decision on leaving the FAR boundaries.
I am with Keith and binski. Fire hazard is easy to sum up in one word. Going out to poke the dragon takes a little more research and awareness, and can still be risky business.
Submitted by trailhead on Thu, 03/12/2009 - 9:48pm
Posts: 160
Joined: 17-06-2007
Well, you guys may be right, but the Canadian Avalanche Centre doesn't seem to have any problem summing up the current avalanche risk in one word, and even in forecasting the future risk. And as long as other sources continue to report the risk as "moderate" or "considerable" without further elaboration, I don't see why the same information can't be shared on the roadway.
again, not a single word except in unusual--verg good or very bad--conditions.
and the other issue is the negative FAR pr of having a sign telling of avi conditions at the entrance of a controlled area. it makes no sense. put it where people access the back country or in the center of town or somewhere that back country folks will see it. the majority of the folks on the hill do not really understand the difference between a controlled area and the backcountry.
Submitted by trailhead on Fri, 04/12/2009 - 9:58am
Posts: 160
Joined: 17-06-2007
Keith, it's only a grid because they forecast 2 days into the future. If you look at today's condition it has 3 single word ratings. Just report the highest level rating of the 3 elevations. If people want more info they can always go to the web site. The point of a sign would be to raise awareness of the hazard, not provide a complete condition report.
As for why that sign is on the FAR ski hill road, good question. Who sees the sign in summer and why should anyone going up to the ski hill in summer care about the fire hazard? Put the sign where it'll be seen and be useful. I'm guessing that on any given day around here we have more sledders than skiers using the backcountry so a sign on the highway would make more sense.
it's not like rating a climb, which is rated by the hardest move. it's about an essentially non-quantifiable risk that varies substantially by terrain, aspect and elevation. i've lead and organized more than my fair share of avi "rescues". usually they are body recoveries. one season where i lived, roughly the half the size of fernie, we had eleven dead and two live recoveries. not good odds. i am not in favor of creating any short cuts in people learning about the conditions. short cuts leads to casualness, leads to the Darwin Awards.
if people want to go in the backcountry, they learn and assume the risks. they need to learn about snow. they need to learn about route finding.
they need to realize that half the people buried by avalanches are dead when the snow stops moving. half. of the half left alive, one in a hundred is pulled out alive after six minutes.
it ain't supposed to be easy and it ain't a walk in the park. it's walking along the edge and if you step off, it's a long ways to the bottom.
There are a lot of great comments on here, from both sides. When you read the avalanche bulletin it sums the conditions up to the 3 major heights of land, bellow treeline, treeline, alpine. It would be pretty simple to make a sign with 3 sliders. Its not like it changes every single day. It can, sometimes it does, but usually it doesn't. I know it might miss lead the odd punter on "low" days, but that punter would probably go into the B.C without prior knowledge anyways. And when the ratings are at "High" who knows it might save a life.
While on the topic of Avalanche Awareness, why doesn't F.A.R post there bulletin and observations, possibly even a pit or 2 from snow pro on there web site like most other operations do?
I don't expect any of this to ever happen, but always feel its good to at least "Put it out there"
Joined: 21-04-2007
Todd,
That idea has been considered a number of times by the CAA and others. The current thinking is that it is too complex an issue to boil it down to a single word. Also the context can be taken wrong. For the resort it would not serve them well to have the access rd. proclaim the avi danger is extreme. Where does the sign relate too? Also when the avi danger drops to Moderate or Low does that mean green light rip it up ? Not always. The CAA bulletin does boil it out to a category but included is all the text and info. There are changes as well coming to the CAA bulletins to describe Hazard as a combination of both likely hood of triggering and the consequences. Putting roadside avi danger signs out has been determined to present as many pitfalls as possible benefits. I agree it would increase overall awareness of avalanche hazards in general, however it could also give the uninitiated a false sense of security.
Joined: 06-07-2006
sorta like when you see low or moderate fire danger, and people are leaving campfires lit and flicking cigarettes out their car windows...
Joined: 17-06-2007
[quote=Binski]
The current thinking is that it is too complex an issue to boil it down to a single word.
[/quote]
Then why have a rating system at all? I agree that the rating system is complex and not as intuitive as a simple Low, Med, High, Extreme rating. But the CAA created the rating system so why not use it? The avalanche ratings are widely broadcast on radio and TV, so why not on a roadside sign?
[quote=Binski]
Also the context can be taken wrong. For the resort it would not serve them well to have the access rd. proclaim the avi danger is extreme. Where does the sign relate too?
[/quote]
Simply adding the prefix "Backcountry" to the avalanche hazard rating would clear up any ambiguity for the ski hill. But why is the fire hazard sign even on the ski hill rd.? In most communities the fire hazard sign is on a main road or highway where it's more visible to the general public.
[quote=Binski]Also when the avi danger drops to Moderate or Low does that mean green light rip it up ? [/quote]
A possible misinterpretation of the rating isn't a reason to not use it. As I said, the rating is widely broadcast in other media. Are drivers who see a sign more likely to be careless than the radio/TV audience that hears a 10 second avalanche report on the news?
[/quote]
[quote=Binski]Putting roadside avi danger signs out has been determined to present as many pitfalls as possible benefits. I agree it would increase overall awareness of avalanche hazards in general, however it could also give the uninitiated a false sense of security. [/quote]
If that's the case then the CAA should stop all public broadcasts of the avalanche hazard rating, because they may be misunderstood. Either you want awareness of the current rating or you don't. The roadside sign could provide more immediate and local condition information than a radio or TV news report.
Joined: 30-03-2008
the reports are too complex to be on a simple sign with four or five levels. you have aspect. you have elevation. you have the combination of aspect and elevation. and you have changing conditions through the course of a day.
leave it for fires and make people go to the CAA site to read the reports and make a measured decision on leaving the FAR boundaries.
Joined: 26-10-2006
I am with Keith and binski. Fire hazard is easy to sum up in one word. Going out to poke the dragon takes a little more research and awareness, and can still be risky business.
Joined: 17-06-2007
Well, you guys may be right, but the Canadian Avalanche Centre doesn't seem to have any problem summing up the current avalanche risk in one word, and even in forecasting the future risk. And as long as other sources continue to report the risk as "moderate" or "considerable" without further elaboration, I don't see why the same information can't be shared on the roadway.
http://avalanche.ca/cac/bulletins/cac-bulletins/south-rockies/
Joined: 30-03-2008
look at your own link. they don't use a single word they use a grid.
others, like the colorado avi center, use a 'rose' which provides a more accurate picture of the conditions.
http://avalanche.state.co.us/index.php
again, not a single word except in unusual--verg good or very bad--conditions.
and the other issue is the negative FAR pr of having a sign telling of avi conditions at the entrance of a controlled area. it makes no sense. put it where people access the back country or in the center of town or somewhere that back country folks will see it. the majority of the folks on the hill do not really understand the difference between a controlled area and the backcountry.
Joined: 17-06-2007
Keith, it's only a grid because they forecast 2 days into the future. If you look at today's condition it has 3 single word ratings. Just report the highest level rating of the 3 elevations. If people want more info they can always go to the web site. The point of a sign would be to raise awareness of the hazard, not provide a complete condition report.
As for why that sign is on the FAR ski hill road, good question. Who sees the sign in summer and why should anyone going up to the ski hill in summer care about the fire hazard? Put the sign where it'll be seen and be useful. I'm guessing that on any given day around here we have more sledders than skiers using the backcountry so a sign on the highway would make more sense.
Joined: 30-03-2008
it's not like rating a climb, which is rated by the hardest move. it's about an essentially non-quantifiable risk that varies substantially by terrain, aspect and elevation. i've lead and organized more than my fair share of avi "rescues". usually they are body recoveries. one season where i lived, roughly the half the size of fernie, we had eleven dead and two live recoveries. not good odds. i am not in favor of creating any short cuts in people learning about the conditions. short cuts leads to casualness, leads to the Darwin Awards.
if people want to go in the backcountry, they learn and assume the risks. they need to learn about snow. they need to learn about route finding.
they need to realize that half the people buried by avalanches are dead when the snow stops moving. half. of the half left alive, one in a hundred is pulled out alive after six minutes.
it ain't supposed to be easy and it ain't a walk in the park. it's walking along the edge and if you step off, it's a long ways to the bottom.
Joined: 01-10-2006
There are a lot of great comments on here, from both sides. When you read the avalanche bulletin it sums the conditions up to the 3 major heights of land, bellow treeline, treeline, alpine. It would be pretty simple to make a sign with 3 sliders. Its not like it changes every single day. It can, sometimes it does, but usually it doesn't. I know it might miss lead the odd punter on "low" days, but that punter would probably go into the B.C without prior knowledge anyways. And when the ratings are at "High" who knows it might save a life.
While on the topic of Avalanche Awareness, why doesn't F.A.R post there bulletin and observations, possibly even a pit or 2 from snow pro on there web site like most other operations do?
I don't expect any of this to ever happen, but always feel its good to at least "Put it out there"