Skiing from Boulder (p.1, then Random Topics)

[Marc_C]

The National Ski Areas Association http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/facts-ski-snbd-safety.asp states the annual average at around 40 deaths - I assume this is inbounds based on the way they state their data and I believe it's only for the U.S.

No that's got to be both in-bounds and out of bounds and not only to skiers. Until a couple of years ago inbounds avi deaths in the U.S. were nearly non-existent.

Read carefully folks - that 40 deaths was all skiing/boarding deaths from all reasons. And the word "avalanche" doesn't appear anywhere on that linked page.

 

[Marc_C]

From some quick searches the death rate for in-bounds skiing looks to be at least 10x that of shark deaths... The National Ski Areas Association http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/facts-ski-snbd-safety.asp states the annual average at around 40 deaths...

You missed a key word that Tony wrote...

I'm guessing the death rate from that would be comparable to in-bounds avalanche from skiing.

 

[Patrick]

1 1/2 hours to Nice???? What are you smoking? Try 4-5 hours maybe?

TGV? I did it a couple of years ago. I think it was about 2 hours. I might be confusing this with train ride with Avignon though so I'll defer to you Patrick. I will say Milan is another city well located for skiing.

But Patrick has a point about distance to the mountains, as I recall flying in and out of Lyon on the La Grave trip.

Judging on the time, I would say that it was probably Avignon, definitely not Nice. Oh yeah, I thought you meant driving time when you mentioned time from Lyon. 1 hour to Grenoble would make sense, but once in Grenoble, you have to get to the resorts. Tony mentioned the Lyon airport which is a distance out of the city of Lyon. In-laws are just a few kilometers east of the airport...much closer for them than the people living in Lyon. LaGrave isn't that close to Grenoble, Chamrousse (site of the Grenoble 68 Olympics) is more closer distance wise then the big resorts of Alpe d'Huez and Les Deux Alpes are a bit further.

I will say Milan is another city well located for skiing.

Geneva (as noted by james earlier in this thread), Munich, Zurich also.

As one who lives somewhat near beach resorts, I will say the Mediterranean does not impress me in that department.

Geneva, yes...deifinitely....especially for the areas in la Haute Savoie like Chamonix. However the connection with the Savoie with Albertville and all the Tarantaise areas (3 vallees (Val Thorens, Meribel, Courchevel), La Plagne, Les Arcs and Val d'Isere-Tignes and the stuff further south, the connection might or would be easier through Lyon.

Mediterranean doesn't impress you. If you are talking beach alone and the general coast? Some of the areas on the sea are really impressive.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I will say the Mediterranean does not impress me in that department.

No sand beaches (I HATE sand), but when I lived in Nice, some friends and I would pile into a car and head to places near Menton that were like something out of a James Bond movie. Exotic, secluded coves where you could dive off cliffs, hang out with topless girls, and gaze out upon warm azur waters, while munching on olives, cheese, and hard, crusty peasant bread. Not sure about your criteria for being impressed, but it worked for me.

 

[Marc_C]

As one who lives somewhat near beach resorts, I will say the Mediterranean does not impress me in that department.

Mediterranean doesn't impress you. If you are talking beach alone and the general coast?

That's cause he doesn't have 25 years of sand grain size and distribution data or wave height and frequency on a rolling 12-month average, so building the spreadsheet that calculates the impressiveness correlation coefficient is impossible without making blatant assumptions, which, of course, is statistically unreliable.

 

[Admin]

As one who lives somewhat near beach resorts, I will say the Mediterranean does not impress me in that department.

Mediterranean doesn't impress you. If you are talking beach alone and the general coast?

That's cause he doesn't have 25 years of sand grain size and distribution data or wave height and frequency on a rolling 12-month average, so building the spreadsheet that calculates the impressiveness correlation coefficient is impossible without making blatant assumptions, which, of course, is statistically unreliable.

 

[rsmith]

The National Ski Areas Association http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/facts-ski-snbd-safety.asp states the annual average at around 40 deaths - I assume this is inbounds based on the way they state their data and I believe it's only for the U.S.

No that's got to be both in-bounds and out of bounds and not only to skiers. Until a couple of years ago inbounds avi deaths in the U.S. were nearly non-existent.

Read carefully folks - that 40 deaths was all skiing/boarding deaths from all reasons. And the word "avalanche" doesn't appear anywhere on that linked page.

True, true. I missed the avalanche distinction. With drownings and all other causes I bet surfing claims more lives than inbounds skiing... Inbounds avalanche deaths have got to be in the low single digits per year.

 

[Admin]

Inbounds avalanche deaths have got to be in the low single digits per year.

in a typical year zero in the US.

 

[Marc_C]

Inbounds avalanche deaths have got to be in the low single digits per year.

in a typical year zero in the US.

IIRC, the total number of deaths due to in-bound avalanches ever in the US is in single digit territory.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Inbounds avalanche deaths have got to be in the low single digits per year.

in a typical year zero in the US.

As are shark deaths, that was my point. Majority of in-bounds skier deaths are high speed crash into fixed object. Kennedy/Bono examples are typical.

...NOT rocky at all but NO waves for surfing.

That's my point. No rocks = few fish for snorkeling/scuba. No rocks + no waves = not much difference from a swimming pool. No question there are better places than SoCal for surfing, particularly from what I hear that crowding can be even more of an issue than in skiing. And as some of you know I've had a few tropical destination trips for scuba since I got certified 5 years ago. But the Mediterranean is way down the list as a beach destination IMHO. Sort of like eastern skiing: worthwhile to those with convenient access, but if you have to get on an airplane there's a long list of better options. :stir:

 

[baldyskier]

As one who lives somewhat near beach resorts, I will say the Mediterranean does not impress me in that department.

Mediterranean doesn't impress you. If you are talking beach alone and the general coast?

That's cause he doesn't have 25 years of sand grain size and distribution data or wave height and frequency on a rolling 12-month average, so building the spreadsheet that calculates the impressiveness correlation coefficient is impossible without making blatant assumptions, which, of course, is statistically unreliable.

That's a classic!

 

[rfarren]

I will say the Mediterranean does not impress me in that department.

No sand beaches (I HATE sand), but when I lived in Nice, some friends and I would pile into a car and head to places near Menton that were like something out of a James Bond movie. Exotic, secluded coves where you could dive off cliffs, hang out with topless girls, and gaze out upon warm azur waters, while munching on olives, cheese, and hard, crusty peasant bread. Not sure about your criteria for being impressed, but it worked for me.

I loved Menton! I also was really impressed by this little place to the west called Agay... great sand beaches and coves... plus french pastries!

 

[rfarren]

That's my point. No rocks = few fish for snorkeling/scuba. No rocks + no waves = not much difference from a swimming pool. No question there are better places than SoCal for surfing, particularly from what I hear that crowding can be even more of an issue than in skiing. And as some of you know I've had a few tropical destination trips for scuba since I got certified 5 years ago. But the Mediterranean is way down the list as a beach destination IMHO. Sort of like eastern skiing: worthwhile to those with convenient access, but if you have to get on an airplane there's a long list of better options. :stir:

My sister's husband (from Salerno, and a licenced deep diver) would strongly disagree with you about diving and snorkling in the med. The south of Italy is known for good snorkling and diving, as well as Sardegna. I've been to the Amalfi coast as well as the Calabrian and Apuglia coasts quite a bit... there are many little island off the coast which have great snorkling and protective caves which provides protection for thousands of fish. I'm not sure if the riviera to the north has the same thing going on, but if it does my guess would be that the snorkling/diving is pretty good. IMHO when you go for a beach vacation in Europe, generally you are going for a cultural experience and the diving/snorkling is more of a periphery behind food and relaxation.