I did.....and I must be missing something, because I don't understand the relevance or the point you're trying to make? Not trying to be a smartazz, just being honest.
10-13 MI Snowmobile Fatalities report
- Thread starter 2TrakR
- Start date
I did.....and I must be missing something, because I don't understand the relevance or the point you're trying to make? Not trying to be a smartazz, just being honest.
polarisrider1
New member
mezz
Well-known member
Seriously? Is it really necessary to come across that way? DING! Fries are done, and so am I....
-MezzFirst off I want to state that I am neutral on the sign versus no sign controversy. I usually don't comment on these threads as I tend to do more reading than commenting. Having said that the I think it is way too early to have any facts to back up either view point. I am saying that from a pure statistical standpoint. What I mean by that is one year is way too small of a sample to draw any conclusions. Even if there was a spike in deaths this year you have no way of knowing if that is just a statistical variation for that year or not without several more years of data. Even then, without specific studies related to a specific type of sign, it will be very difficult to draw conclusions. In other words, if there was a death from a failure to navigate a turn that had no sign the question then is: was the failure to navigate the turn do no sign or would the accident have occured even if the sign was present. Or was the person driving too fast, or driving beyond their capabilities, or were they distracted by something and would not have seen the sign and or curve in time to navigate. And I am sure people can think of many more possiblities for the accident. So having facts will take several years to develop. So at this point it happens to be more ones own opinion. And I think it is safe to say there are strong opinions on both sides.
My gut feeling is that (and yes this is only my opinion) we will not see much change statistically do to signs or no signs. I understand the argument that one death is one too many but there will always be deaths whether we have more or less signs, speed limits or no speed limits etc. etc. At some point we need to take responsibility for our selves and not rely on someone or something else for our safety. And as unfortunate as it sounds, we may do everything right and death still occurs. The only way to prevent a snowmobile death is to not go snowmobiling. Personally more or less signs makes no difference to me. It is probably do to the fact that I tend to drive faster in areas that I am more familiar with and drive slower in areas that I am not familiar with. I hope that I have not ruffled any feathers as that was not my intent. Only to hopefully provide a little different perspective.
My gut feeling is that (and yes this is only my opinion) we will not see much change statistically do to signs or no signs. I understand the argument that one death is one too many but there will always be deaths whether we have more or less signs, speed limits or no speed limits etc. etc. At some point we need to take responsibility for our selves and not rely on someone or something else for our safety. And as unfortunate as it sounds, we may do everything right and death still occurs. The only way to prevent a snowmobile death is to not go snowmobiling. Personally more or less signs makes no difference to me. It is probably do to the fact that I tend to drive faster in areas that I am more familiar with and drive slower in areas that I am not familiar with. I hope that I have not ruffled any feathers as that was not my intent. Only to hopefully provide a little different perspective.
L
lenny
Guest
my point is that right in the middle of a straight away, sunny day, no curves, people screw up and it can be very serious. We have people missing corners often and as people screw up for no apparent reason we are still able to conclude without the signs we die? The guy in the video was sight seeing and made a mistake. People miss turns and make mistakes and to say with any confidence that lack of sign was the culprit is flat out bogus. The corners that require a moderate level of caution are marked and if a guy needs more help than that he ought to take up slot car racing. Some corners are icy, washed out, humped up with a berm, moguls coming into the curve. These conditions exist often and to jump to the conclusion that the lack of sign itself is a pathetic excuse for anyone to hold. As an experienced rider I will not buy any excuse that one has because no one is holding your thumb on the flipper. We ought to be riding in control of our sleds and no the signs dictating to us what to do.
Last edited:
POLARISDAN
New member
Point taken. I understand and mostly agree (with the exception of your statement that corners requiring a moderate level of caution are marked -- many are, but many are not -- that may change as the wrinkles are ironed out).....but I will say this: I never said, or at least meant to imply, that missing a corner would result in death. I will go out on a limb and say that plenty of corners are missed -- either with or without signs, and for any number of reasons -- without fatal results. Similarly, I'm sure that plenty of people are forced into taking evasive action because of somebody coming through a curve or turn too hot, again without fatal results. These misses may not even result in any sort of contact or injury. These cases will rarely, if ever, show up in the statistics. Does that mean they don't count?
I am in complete agreement with everything Ibendwire says.
+1 On this! Lenny is dead on that the stats do not show any change at this point. The DNR stats are insufficient, They don't describe trail conditions, sled conditions, Werther, How about the history of the rider? How many cars sleds has he or she crashed. What would be good in a post is how the signs have effected your ridding not speculating on others outcome.
I only hope people who feel the sign issues are so devastating are using the same effort to fight things like drunk driving.
craze1cars
New member
It's nice to finally find and hear one well-stated opinion from one person, rather than scanning over and mostly ignoring the same argumentative opinions repeatedly from the same 3 or 4 people over and over and over and over again...scattered among several topics and not just this one.
This thread had the strong potential to be a good and sobering and informative discussion. 90% of it is not, and instead is a slap-fest. I'm kinda new here and don't participate much. Likely to stay that way if this is what these topics often turn into.
Last edited:
Not a south of the bridge troll, but a person that posts on chats merely to argue and stir shart.
polarisrider1
New member
Gotcha, and page 8 begins. Lol. I thought I seen a curve sign at Togwotee but was wrong.
Probly a Bobcat!
L
lenny
Guest
I agree with you and at the same time I do not see the lack of corner signs. Maybe I have trained myself to not even care about signs in general including hand signals. I ride mainly in my clubs trails but have been through the Keewee this year and not a single issue whatsoever, nor any others in my group. I believe there very well may be issues in other areas and that is reasonable. My biggest problem is those who claim doom and gloom do not acknowledge it was not the case. I also strongly disagree with those who say there has not been enough time to really see how things will pan out. 1 year is just that, 1 years worth of experiences, 10's of thousands of people ride MI and the gloom and doom theory is bogus. I don't ask or need anyone to agree with me but when some say it was stupid and death will result I say prove it and back it up. If we had nothing to go by I'd be the guiltiest person out there boasting bogus claims.
Here is what Ibendwire says : Having said that the I think it is way too early to have any facts to back up either view point. I am saying that from a pure statistical standpoint. What I mean by that is one year is way too small of a sample to draw any conclusions"
I believe I can draw 1 conclusion with the fats to back up my conclusion. My conclusion is that in the state of MI this year,there has been no notable increase of fatalities due to the less signage as predicted. Is my conclusion reasonable. Have I been tirelessly arguing this very point with Fcat and polarice?
The above statement is reasonable but lacking and has 2 errors. Let me explain: We do have facts to see if the lack of signs increased the death toll,,,this year. Not next year but this year and one year speaks for something. It will impact the over all conclusion. Keep in mind I have said at least 3 times that it is not enough time to draw a positive conclusion as to the effectiveness The conclusion we can draw from the available info is what I have been saying all along and that is simply that the new policy has not produced the gloom and doom predicted. To backup what I am saying, look at it like this, who have I been conversing with the most? It has been Firecatguy and Polarice whom both hold the position that less sign will produce death and less safe trails, a radical opinion with no basis. I have a knack at combating ridiculous viewpoints specially when they are a simple issue like this. I have not said, in context much more than less signs do not equal more deaths. I usually do not instigate sarcasm or insult but often lack the discipline to refrain from becoming involved and before you know people are turned off but that's when I do my best work. The radicals push the hardest and the mainstream sit back and take it often their stronger voice is an opposition to be reckoned with. I fight radical ideology even though this is not that it is similar and worth a good fight. Without myself and others opposing the radicals we slowly loose a grip and tender minds are manipulated IMO it would be a disaster to see open minded people swayed by pure nonsense and scads of useless signs littering the woods because lazy people cannot take care of themselves. I am not willing to give up anything to people who take away reason and replace it with a lame alternative. That's exactly why I am stubborn and am relentless. This is a snowmobile forum but it's implication are more than most would think and that's common sense.
Final thought and question, has there been an increase in deaths on trails because of less signs. Has the gloom and doom materialized?
Last edited:
I can't speak for others, but I have stated several times that the doom and gloom I thought would happen did not happen. Or at least, appears not to have happened. Without having more specifics than what the fatality summary gives, I don't think we have any real way of knowing whether a blown turn was because of a lack of signage. It could be...but there are also several other things it could be caused by. The accident investigators may have a better idea, but all of the details are not provided in the summary. I think Ibendwire's assessment is spot-on.
Also....I hear time and again that this change is supposed to make our trails safer, yet all I hear anybody talking about is fatalities. Okay, so maybe fatalities went down, or stayed the same.....that's certainly good.....but what about those incidents I spoke of in my earlier post that result in minor injuries, or no injuries, that go unreported? Do we not include those when we talk about safety? And again, most, if not all of those incidents go unreported so there is NO way to know how many of those happen. Of course, this was true before the signage change, too -- so we don't know if they've gone up, or if they've gone down. The point I'm trying to make is, it will be difficult at best to measure the full effectiveness of this change.
POLARISDAN
New member
page 8 unreal..and unfortunately i have a fresh observation based in reality...this is MN not MI so this is about signs and markers only...
but i was forced monday to ride in a blizzard conditions to put miles on my rebuilt rush 800..last chance i had..and it was 1/4 mile visibility at best, and without the excellent signage by my club and our neighbors, there is no way i could have gotten across these farm field trails and gotten the necessary miles i needed before i shelved the rush for the season..so for me here, the trail markers and signs were absolutely necessary to ride safely and stay on trail..
my 2 cents
but i was forced monday to ride in a blizzard conditions to put miles on my rebuilt rush 800..last chance i had..and it was 1/4 mile visibility at best, and without the excellent signage by my club and our neighbors, there is no way i could have gotten across these farm field trails and gotten the necessary miles i needed before i shelved the rush for the season..so for me here, the trail markers and signs were absolutely necessary to ride safely and stay on trail..
my 2 cents
If deaths did not go down or stayed the same, and the only reason signs were removed was to make trails safer, than the sign removal initiative could be considered a failure, correct? It did not make them safer because deaths did not change. See how this crapola spins round and round. I believe it was mentioned that studies were made in the US and Canada (I believe I heard Ontario and Wisconsin). Maybe if we could find those studies we could crunch those statistics, pro and con.
At this point you can not make the statement that the sign removal is a failure as well as a success. This is because deaths vary from year to year so having an increase or decrease in any one given year can be stastically insignificant and that is why multiple years are needed before you can make a conclusion if a program is a success or a failure. Now add in all the other factors that may be the cause of the deaths. ie alcohol, speed, mechanical failure, etc. So there wil be several things to consider before determining if this is a sucess or a failure.