Selfie Deaths in the Outdoors(outsideonline.com)
outsideonline.com
Selfie Deaths in the Outdoors
https://www.outsideonline.com/2393419/selfie-deaths
46 comments
This is not a new phenomenon. When I visited the grand canyon (pre cell phone) every gift shop carried a book called "Over The Edge: Death in Grand Canyon". Most of the deaths were from people urinating into, gazing into, or walking too close to the edge but a whole chapter was dedicated to people who walk in while taking photographs.
(Also good to know that apparently you can have a dizziness spell gazing into a deep void like that, a large chunk were people who stood on the edge, looked in, got dizzy and fell over)
While it's definitely an issue, I'd caution against blaming technology.
(Also good to know that apparently you can have a dizziness spell gazing into a deep void like that, a large chunk were people who stood on the edge, looked in, got dizzy and fell over)
While it's definitely an issue, I'd caution against blaming technology.
The article touches on, but doesn't really differentiate, the actions or artists/athletes and someone taking a "dangerous" selfie because they were there.
They call out Gigi Wu, Victor Thomas and Alex Honnold - all three do this with purpose, and planning (Alex Honnold especially. To bring him into this topic is odd to me.
<SPOILER> He had practiced the El Cap climb roped in countless times, until he had every hand hold memorized, and understood intimately that he could die. </SPOILER>
That is all very different than the person who sees a shot where they are, and takes an uncalculated risk, because the photo is just there to take.
They call out Gigi Wu, Victor Thomas and Alex Honnold - all three do this with purpose, and planning (Alex Honnold especially. To bring him into this topic is odd to me.
<SPOILER> He had practiced the El Cap climb roped in countless times, until he had every hand hold memorized, and understood intimately that he could die. </SPOILER>
That is all very different than the person who sees a shot where they are, and takes an uncalculated risk, because the photo is just there to take.
The use of the Gigi Wu story was unfair to begin with, but it became far weirder when it was set up for some kind of contrast with Honnold.
> Is Gigi Wu’s summit project really all that different than the stylized images we love to see in glossy magazines like Outside? Do we put it in the same category as, say, elite athlete Alex Honnold’s epic free climb of El Capitan
That's a nasty rhetorical trick, because they are in the same category, but it's not the one the story set up for Wu. Solo traverses and free soloing are both risky but established practices, and neither is a product of selfies or modern media culture. John Bachar was setting the precedent for Yosemite free solos 30 years ago, and solo hiking is too old to date. Wu and Honnold aren't average people getting hurt imitating experts, they're experts who happened to gather fame for risks they were already taking. Neither of them deserves to be present in a story about people endangering themselves for the sake of social media.
> Is Gigi Wu’s summit project really all that different than the stylized images we love to see in glossy magazines like Outside? Do we put it in the same category as, say, elite athlete Alex Honnold’s epic free climb of El Capitan
That's a nasty rhetorical trick, because they are in the same category, but it's not the one the story set up for Wu. Solo traverses and free soloing are both risky but established practices, and neither is a product of selfies or modern media culture. John Bachar was setting the precedent for Yosemite free solos 30 years ago, and solo hiking is too old to date. Wu and Honnold aren't average people getting hurt imitating experts, they're experts who happened to gather fame for risks they were already taking. Neither of them deserves to be present in a story about people endangering themselves for the sake of social media.
Honnold is mentioned in the article because he is routinely featured on outsideonline.com (an "old media" personality), Wu is in there as a representative of the social media personalities measured in followers gained through extreme pictures. The fact that she did not die from a careless selfie folly is what forms a chain of closeness between the easily ridiculed thrill selfie crowd and the "serious outdooring" celebrated by outsideonline.com. I read it as an element of self-reflection: "it's not as polar as we might like to think".
"Selfie Deaths Are an Epidemic"
259 deaths over 6 years is hardly an epidemic and probably statistically insignificant as a cause of death.
259 deaths over 6 years is hardly an epidemic and probably statistically insignificant as a cause of death.
They recently banned the sale of MEK here in the United States (it's used mainly as a paint stripper), arguably due to its inhalation danger. It was extremely volatile, and in an enclosed space (indoors), it could cause someone to die.
Which it did, of course.
I'm pretty sure it was far fewer deaths than this over a period of 30-40 years, yet for some reason, it was deemed to be highly dangerous and pulled from the market (IIRC, you can still get it for industrial uses - consumer use has been banned).
Just to be clear, I'm saying the same thing I believe you are; that statistically the numbers are insignificant. I find it ludicrous that in the case of MEK, it was used as an excuse to pull the product (to be replaced by far inferior other products on the market) - though I tend to wonder if that was the only reason (I tend to wonder if it didn't have to so with our "war on some drugs", as such a fluid could be used for the making of meth, I imagine).
I doubt any laws will be enacted in the case of "selfie deaths", though - even though if you compared the numbers with the "death from MEK inhalation", you'd see that people are far more likely to die from a selfie than from stripping paint with MEK.
Which it did, of course.
I'm pretty sure it was far fewer deaths than this over a period of 30-40 years, yet for some reason, it was deemed to be highly dangerous and pulled from the market (IIRC, you can still get it for industrial uses - consumer use has been banned).
Just to be clear, I'm saying the same thing I believe you are; that statistically the numbers are insignificant. I find it ludicrous that in the case of MEK, it was used as an excuse to pull the product (to be replaced by far inferior other products on the market) - though I tend to wonder if that was the only reason (I tend to wonder if it didn't have to so with our "war on some drugs", as such a fluid could be used for the making of meth, I imagine).
I doubt any laws will be enacted in the case of "selfie deaths", though - even though if you compared the numbers with the "death from MEK inhalation", you'd see that people are far more likely to die from a selfie than from stripping paint with MEK.
The annoying thing is that laws don't even have to be passed directly against you to still impact you.
As far as I can tell, there's no law requiring "air duster" manufacturers to add bitterant to their products to prevent inhalant abuse. But despite that, it is in pretty much all of their products. It has become nearly impossible to purchase uncontaminated dusters.
As far as I can tell, there's no law requiring "air duster" manufacturers to add bitterant to their products to prevent inhalant abuse. But despite that, it is in pretty much all of their products. It has become nearly impossible to purchase uncontaminated dusters.
Out of curiosity, what are the drawbacks of the "contaminated" dusters? I've never noticed the bitterant in normal use.
If you use a lot of it, it will get into the air and you will taste it. If you use it to clean a keyboard or mouse, the bitterant transfers to your fingers, and then on to your lunch.
It's a kind of disgusting example of how diseases get transferred, now that I think about it...
Lastly, you should NOT use it to clean flour out of the crevices of your kitchen mixer.
It's a kind of disgusting example of how diseases get transferred, now that I think about it...
Lastly, you should NOT use it to clean flour out of the crevices of your kitchen mixer.
Anything to sell a story, right?
It’s not even necessary in this case. A selfie-induced death is interesting enough without a manufactured tale of an “epidemic.”
It’s not even necessary in this case. A selfie-induced death is interesting enough without a manufactured tale of an “epidemic.”
> statistically insignificant as a cause of death
To be sure, I think it should be compared to the number of deaths in the same situations.
To be sure, I think it should be compared to the number of deaths in the same situations.
> in the same situations.
But without the risks "added by taking selfies", as it's the point of the article.
But without the risks "added by taking selfies", as it's the point of the article.
> statistically insignificant as a cause of death
What does this even mean?
What does this even mean?
As someone heavily emotionally invested in the public outdoor spaces of the United States - I really wish the larger outdoor retailers/services/etc would put more emphasis on respecting places "digitally." It's great that more people are getting out and enjoying the outdoors but you have to worry that we could be hugging something we love to death.
Anyway, there is a small movement to create an 8th Leave no Trace principle: https://8thlnt.wordpress.com/ - and that is to be mindful of what we do digitally in the outdoors.
Another good article on the subject: https://lnt.org/new-social-media-guidance/ & https://www.racked.com/2018/8/27/17719792/outdoor-influencer...
In any case, I've seen what people do to trails/nature/wilderness and its pretty depressing. Just last weekend I went hiking with my friend and his friend in the Olympic Peninsula. Friend's friend has 35k Instagram followers all from taking photos of himself and his dogs outdoors and to my great dismay he left his dog poop right on the trail within the first half mile of the hike!
Anyway, there is a small movement to create an 8th Leave no Trace principle: https://8thlnt.wordpress.com/ - and that is to be mindful of what we do digitally in the outdoors.
Another good article on the subject: https://lnt.org/new-social-media-guidance/ & https://www.racked.com/2018/8/27/17719792/outdoor-influencer...
In any case, I've seen what people do to trails/nature/wilderness and its pretty depressing. Just last weekend I went hiking with my friend and his friend in the Olympic Peninsula. Friend's friend has 35k Instagram followers all from taking photos of himself and his dogs outdoors and to my great dismay he left his dog poop right on the trail within the first half mile of the hike!
Something similar is done in caving. Cave locations are generally not shared. You learn where a cave is when someone who has been there takes you to cave it. There is sort of a secret society aspect to it, but it is maintained to keep both practitioners and the caves safe.
The Spelunker's Code
I share your wish and think that people are coming around to the idea of respecting places digitally.
I've noticed that Big Agnes, for example, is pretty discrete about the locations in their catalog. Last year there was a picture of a hot springs in an Idaho wilderness area and the caption was simply "secluded hot springs".
As one of the people who started the 8th LNT "movement" (really just a haphazard attempt by myself and two friends to create a coherent "policy" stance to bring the multitude of conversations about social media impacts together under one banner) I appreciate you bringing that idea up and linking to the articles you did.
LNT likely will never add an 8th principle (and in hindsight I wished we'd called the "movement" something else), but they were very responsive the idea and acknowledged the problems -- hence the social media guidelines they released. I think the fact that they did that was really courageous of them, given the potential for backlash by the "don't tell me what to do online" crowd.
I'm also very emotionally invested in public lands (I moved cross-country to be closer to some of the wildest places in the lower 48 five years ago) and think that most people who are see the fact that social media impacts wild places, often negatively.
Bummer about your friend's friend, but just goes to show just because people project an "outdoorsy" vibe doesn't mean they really care at all.
Thanks again for linking to the articles you did, makes me happy to see someone else out there "gets it". Hope you have some great hikes this summer.
I've noticed that Big Agnes, for example, is pretty discrete about the locations in their catalog. Last year there was a picture of a hot springs in an Idaho wilderness area and the caption was simply "secluded hot springs".
As one of the people who started the 8th LNT "movement" (really just a haphazard attempt by myself and two friends to create a coherent "policy" stance to bring the multitude of conversations about social media impacts together under one banner) I appreciate you bringing that idea up and linking to the articles you did.
LNT likely will never add an 8th principle (and in hindsight I wished we'd called the "movement" something else), but they were very responsive the idea and acknowledged the problems -- hence the social media guidelines they released. I think the fact that they did that was really courageous of them, given the potential for backlash by the "don't tell me what to do online" crowd.
I'm also very emotionally invested in public lands (I moved cross-country to be closer to some of the wildest places in the lower 48 five years ago) and think that most people who are see the fact that social media impacts wild places, often negatively.
Bummer about your friend's friend, but just goes to show just because people project an "outdoorsy" vibe doesn't mean they really care at all.
Thanks again for linking to the articles you did, makes me happy to see someone else out there "gets it". Hope you have some great hikes this summer.
outside online actually had another article about tagging locations of photos on instagram, and how those locations weren't able to deal with the subsequent influx of guests.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2160416/instagram-ruining-grea...
https://www.outsideonline.com/2160416/instagram-ruining-grea...
It's not just outdoor places, urban location can get overwhelmed by tourists and instagramers (like this story for a Paris street: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19316546)
Isn't this just NIMBY but for outdoors?
I don't think so, although I can see where you might get that impression. There's a lot of nuance involved in this issue and once you delve a bit deeper into it you'll see that it definitely isn't NIMBYism at work.
Ultimately, it's about resource protection and making sure that places don't suffer too greatly from the impacts of having a huge surge in visitors after people see them on Instagram.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of some of the criticism of being discrete about posting vulnerable outdoor locations on social media as being NIMBY or elitist is the fact that once places become super popular (Conundrum Hot Springs, wilderness areas near Portland, etc.) they almost inevitable end up becoming areas where permits are required and limited amounts are available-- thus actually limiting the number of people that can go there and making it more of an "elite" experience.
There is plenty of public land for everyone to spread out on and enjoy, but real issues arise when too many people go to the same exact place (and are often uninformed about how to properly interact with a natural landscape, because the only "research" they did was see a photo on Instagram and then plug the location into Google Maps on their smartphone).
Ultimately, it's about resource protection and making sure that places don't suffer too greatly from the impacts of having a huge surge in visitors after people see them on Instagram.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of some of the criticism of being discrete about posting vulnerable outdoor locations on social media as being NIMBY or elitist is the fact that once places become super popular (Conundrum Hot Springs, wilderness areas near Portland, etc.) they almost inevitable end up becoming areas where permits are required and limited amounts are available-- thus actually limiting the number of people that can go there and making it more of an "elite" experience.
There is plenty of public land for everyone to spread out on and enjoy, but real issues arise when too many people go to the same exact place (and are often uninformed about how to properly interact with a natural landscape, because the only "research" they did was see a photo on Instagram and then plug the location into Google Maps on their smartphone).
> Selfie Deaths Are an Epidemic
> 259 people died between 2011 and 2017
43 deaths per year is ABSOLUTELY NOT an epidemic. Sorry to be harsh, but it is a (minor) rounding error in accidental death statistics. I wouldn't even consider it newsworthy.
43 deaths per year is ABSOLUTELY NOT an epidemic. Sorry to be harsh, but it is a (minor) rounding error in accidental death statistics. I wouldn't even consider it newsworthy.
How many people died similar deaths in the outdoors before mobile phones?
How many where neither a phone nor camera is, or was, involved?
Without numbers to compare the reported numbers against, this tells us nothing.
How many where neither a phone nor camera is, or was, involved?
Without numbers to compare the reported numbers against, this tells us nothing.
Sure. But people who are not having their photo taken are more likely to be looking out than those who are backing towards dangerous footing to get a good selfie.
I wouldn't make that assumption. Plenty of people are moving around to get the perfect view, and are still not paying attention to how risky the situation is. Also, as mentioned elsewhere in the comments, vertigo can play a part - and that is _more_ likely to happen when looking at the vista than when maneuvering for a photo.
how many more people go outside and behold nature's beauty who wouldn't have done so without the social media drive? I'm sure it's been the primary reason many people go to scenic places.
I don't think that there's any reason to shame people for taking adventure selfies, any more than we 'shame' people for climbing everest¹ or people who run marathons.²
Often it's not even the selfie itself that causes the accident. Just being in these places/environments increases risk of death obviously, but that's not newsworthy.
1: 6.5% death rate among people who summit. Probably higher overall, but I couldn't find a statistic for that.
2: Death rate of 0.8 per 100,000 people.
Often it's not even the selfie itself that causes the accident. Just being in these places/environments increases risk of death obviously, but that's not newsworthy.
1: 6.5% death rate among people who summit. Probably higher overall, but I couldn't find a statistic for that.
2: Death rate of 0.8 per 100,000 people.
> That’s exactly what happens when we take a selfie: our attention is focused on the camera and the shot, not where we are placing our feet or what’s around us. We literally have no idea that we are about to step off a cliff or tumble over a waterfall. Put another way, we don’t intend to engage in risky behavior; we just don’t realize we’ve wandered into that realm until it’s too late.
While this may be true, the ability to determine a situation might be unsafe before the act of taking the selfie isn't diminished. When I visited the Grand Canyon, there were people sitting on the edge of precipitous drops, carefree. I chose to not even come within 50ft. of the drop simply because the potential risk far outweighed any potential gain. By going to the edge I risked death, for what? A view down the canyon? There are extraordinary views from a very safe distance. My life is worth more than any photograph.
While this may be true, the ability to determine a situation might be unsafe before the act of taking the selfie isn't diminished. When I visited the Grand Canyon, there were people sitting on the edge of precipitous drops, carefree. I chose to not even come within 50ft. of the drop simply because the potential risk far outweighed any potential gain. By going to the edge I risked death, for what? A view down the canyon? There are extraordinary views from a very safe distance. My life is worth more than any photograph.
Typical media alarmism. A few years ago it was "GPS is going to kill us all because people keep driving off cliffs following it". Journalists are always quick to exploit a minor tragedy to the utmost in the pursuit of page views.
It’s easy to write off these tragedies as catastrophically bad judgment
... but hang on while I try to convince you that 259 deaths (supposedly) in 6 years (‘11 - ‘17), a time period beginning immediately following the launch of Instagram, is an epidemic we should all take a moment away from our families and work to be concerned about.
... but hang on while I try to convince you that 259 deaths (supposedly) in 6 years (‘11 - ‘17), a time period beginning immediately following the launch of Instagram, is an epidemic we should all take a moment away from our families and work to be concerned about.
I realize the article is disingenuous as others have pointed out, but going back to selfies, I just don't understand them. I've taken thousands of photos while living in various places around the world, but they rarely ever have me in them (usually only if a friend wants one of us as a group):
https://journeyofkhan.us
I think there is value in questioning why we care so much about photos of us in exotic places, and how that desire has grown with the advances of digital photography, phone cameras and social networking/sharing. But this article fails to ask or comment on those questions.
https://journeyofkhan.us
I think there is value in questioning why we care so much about photos of us in exotic places, and how that desire has grown with the advances of digital photography, phone cameras and social networking/sharing. But this article fails to ask or comment on those questions.
I was in the Grand Canyon a week ago, and the amount of posing girls perched on off-trail ledges being photographed by their boyfriends was astounding. I couldn't help but think something very wrong has been let loose in society. It really made me feel like I was observing primates in some mating ritual gone berserk.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not talking about lovebirds taking a selfie. My wife and I do that all the time. I'm talking about the sustained amateur photo shoots. We kept hearing over and over as we walked along, "Why can't I connect here? My instas aren't loading." It was bizarre.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not talking about lovebirds taking a selfie. My wife and I do that all the time. I'm talking about the sustained amateur photo shoots. We kept hearing over and over as we walked along, "Why can't I connect here? My instas aren't loading." It was bizarre.
> It really made me feel like I was observing primates in some mating ritual gone berserk.
This is so condescending. They're primates in some berserk mating ritual because people like taking pictures of themselves with nature in the background? I'm also curious how you know they were dating but not married. Apparently, "sustained amateur photo shoots" is a good indicator of who they are as people or human beings? How does the Mona Lisa fit into all of this? That portrait in front of nature is okay because it's a painting? Because she was married?
This is so condescending. They're primates in some berserk mating ritual because people like taking pictures of themselves with nature in the background? I'm also curious how you know they were dating but not married. Apparently, "sustained amateur photo shoots" is a good indicator of who they are as people or human beings? How does the Mona Lisa fit into all of this? That portrait in front of nature is okay because it's a painting? Because she was married?
airstrike(1)
Am I the only one that was expecting a site similar to the Darwin Awards?
selfie death = natural selection
Anything for the Gram Likes :D
Darwinious. The author.
The author suspected pageviews / pageimpressions. By the numbers of deaths to population division: clickbait. I guess the age of the author between 23 and 26.
More peiple die by struggling themselves in their bed by accident. Nuf said.
Sorry for the direct rhetoric approach - but instead of commenting on bs inthink the thinkers on HN could use use their brainlard on more positive, insightful and entertaining topics.
Me, waking up now.
More peiple die by struggling themselves in their bed by accident. Nuf said.
Sorry for the direct rhetoric approach - but instead of commenting on bs inthink the thinkers on HN could use use their brainlard on more positive, insightful and entertaining topics.
Me, waking up now.
Talking to myself. Emm ... yes, sir. Better than waiting or scrolling on a glass-surface other than a bottle of beer, either.
> It’s easy to write off these tragedies as catastrophically bad judgment.
Yeah, because they are. I have never once thought about risking my life for a selfie. The only thing the author offers to explain why this isn't true is that some selfie deaths occur while the photographer is engaged in “non-risky” behavior. That would make them accidents. Whether someone was holding a phone when an unforeseeable accident befalls them seems pretty irrelevant.
Overall I'm not sure 259 people dying in six years worldwide can be called an epidemic, especially when you consider that they may have died this way even without handheld cameras to document it. It seems very silly to call it “our obsession” with photographing risk-taking when obviously the overwhelming majority of people do not do this.