8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read everyone in that group (men, women) decided to use the guides precisely because they were avid outdoorspeople and competent (the women more so than the men) AND also recognized their limitations and were not reckless so they wanted an extra layer of expertise and safety.

The guides were the ones who ultimately decided behind close doors what the course of action should be but I don't think that at this time their specific reasoning is known or that it will necessary will be.

They all deserve our sympathy: the dead skiers, survivors and their families.

Of course, so traumatic for all the survivors and awful for all the families.

Yes, and also the rescuers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read everyone in that group (men, women) decided to use the guides precisely because they were avid outdoorspeople and competent (the women more so than the men) AND also recognized their limitations and were not reckless so they wanted an extra layer of expertise and safety.

The guides were the ones who ultimately decided behind close doors what the course of action should be but I don't think that at this time their specific reasoning is known or that it will necessary will be.

They all deserve our sympathy: the dead skiers, survivors and their families.

Of course, so traumatic for all the survivors and awful for all the families.

Yes, and also the rescuers.

And the rescue was so treacherous that they needed backup rescuers in case the rescuers needed to be rescued!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read everyone in that group (men, women) decided to use the guides precisely because they were avid outdoorspeople and competent (the women more so than the men) AND also recognized their limitations and were not reckless so they wanted an extra layer of expertise and safety.

The guides were the ones who ultimately decided behind close doors what the course of action should be but I don't think that at this time their specific reasoning is known or that it will necessary will be.

They all deserve our sympathy: the dead skiers, survivors and their families.

Of course, so traumatic for all the survivors and awful for all the families.

Yes, and also the rescuers.

And the rescue was so treacherous that they needed backup rescuers in case the rescuers needed to be rescued!

Unnecessary danger for rescuers because of thrill seeling risk takers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.

The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

lol. This is *exactly* the kind of hubris that leads to disaster. “We have owned a cabin in the Rockies for 5 generations! We can ski in storms!” No. Your identity and belief doesn’t turn an amateur into an expert. The guides no doubt said and thought the same things about themselves.

We would never have gone out under the conditions that the guides chose to leave in. That doesn’t change the fact that some storms are safe. You realize that not every storm is a blizzard, right? Did your family live in a city in the same house for many generations? Do you know it intimately? The best places to go, to avoid, the secret shortcuts, etc.? It’s not different in the mountains. We know that place very, very well. Who would I trust more? Of course you pay attention to forecasts and reports but it’s odd to suggest that deep knowledge of a place is meaningless.

Your remark about identity and belief does remind me of another point about some back country skiers. I don’t subscribe to this but there are those who believe that high risk avalanche days are safe for them because on those days they can really “read” the snow. Maybe the guides had these thoughts.

"read" the snow in insane winds in whiteout conditions where human made avalanches are rated at the highest level possible? It's delusion.

Delusion is a good word. Most of the speculation about the motives of the guides has been about financial motives. I wonder if we will learn that this delusion played a part? With only one guide surviving I don’t know if we will ever know all that was said behind those doors in their meeting. There must have been some disagreement or they wouldn’t have needed the secrecy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.

The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

lol. This is *exactly* the kind of hubris that leads to disaster. “We have owned a cabin in the Rockies for 5 generations! We can ski in storms!” No. Your identity and belief doesn’t turn an amateur into an expert. The guides no doubt said and thought the same things about themselves.

We would never have gone out under the conditions that the guides chose to leave in. That doesn’t change the fact that some storms are safe. You realize that not every storm is a blizzard, right? Did your family live in a city in the same house for many generations? Do you know it intimately? The best places to go, to avoid, the secret shortcuts, etc.? It’s not different in the mountains. We know that place very, very well. Who would I trust more? Of course you pay attention to forecasts and reports but it’s odd to suggest that deep knowledge of a place is meaningless.

Your remark about identity and belief does remind me of another point about some back country skiers. I don’t subscribe to this but there are those who believe that high risk avalanche days are safe for them because on those days they can really “read” the snow. Maybe the guides had these thoughts.

"read" the snow in insane winds in whiteout conditions where human made avalanches are rated at the highest level possible? It's delusion.

Delusion is a good word. Most of the speculation about the motives of the guides has been about financial motives. I wonder if we will learn that this delusion played a part? With only one guide surviving I don’t know if we will ever know all that was said behind those doors in their meeting. There must have been some disagreement or they wouldn’t have needed the secrecy.

I heard that it’s not unusual for guides on a trip like that to make the planning decisions alone. There are probably different factors to consider and it gets complicated if guests are chiming in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.

The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

lol. This is *exactly* the kind of hubris that leads to disaster. “We have owned a cabin in the Rockies for 5 generations! We can ski in storms!” No. Your identity and belief doesn’t turn an amateur into an expert. The guides no doubt said and thought the same things about themselves.

We would never have gone out under the conditions that the guides chose to leave in. That doesn’t change the fact that some storms are safe. You realize that not every storm is a blizzard, right? Did your family live in a city in the same house for many generations? Do you know it intimately? The best places to go, to avoid, the secret shortcuts, etc.? It’s not different in the mountains. We know that place very, very well. Who would I trust more? Of course you pay attention to forecasts and reports but it’s odd to suggest that deep knowledge of a place is meaningless.

Your remark about identity and belief does remind me of another point about some back country skiers. I don’t subscribe to this but there are those who believe that high risk avalanche days are safe for them because on those days they can really “read” the snow. Maybe the guides had these thoughts.

"read" the snow in insane winds in whiteout conditions where human made avalanches are rated at the highest level possible? It's delusion.

Delusion is a good word. Most of the speculation about the motives of the guides has been about financial motives. I wonder if we will learn that this delusion played a part? With only one guide surviving I don’t know if we will ever know all that was said behind those doors in their meeting. There must have been some disagreement or they wouldn’t have needed the secrecy.

I heard that it’s not unusual for guides on a trip like that to make the planning decisions alone. There are probably different factors to consider and it gets complicated if guests are chiming in.

Maybe. Fundamentally they didn’t need to discuss because the only reasonable decision was to remain in the huts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

IMO when you choose to have children you also choose to put their needs ahead of yours. You need to try to stay alive. This whole “I’m a better mom when I’m happy” is just a BS excuse to do whatever you want. This is what made mom happy is cold comfort to a child without a parent. When they go to college you can carry on as you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My heart aches for all the lives lost and their families. I hope that strict safety laws are put in place to prevent such accidents.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.

+1. You can't keep people from venturing into the wilderness.

Actually, there is one law that many people think would help. Guide pay would be required to be not dependent on tips - the cost of the trip would have to cover full guide compensation as well as enough additional to effectively cover trip cancellation insurance. That way, should the guide company cancel the trip for a safety/weather related reason, the guide and the company are still paid and clients are mostly whole by the travel insurance.

The financial incentives are very misaligned at this point and clients are not paying the true cost to operate the business. There is huge pressure to continue with a trip in dangerous conditions, as we saw.

Wow—that is a great idea. And in orientation to the problem, remarkably similar to the conversation about Everest. The natural conditions cannot be controlled—all that may help are some disincentives to bad risk-taking by humans.

Or maybe the pay is tied to bringing everyone safely back again. You don't get paid before the trip, but after.

A lot of prep time goes into these trips. If a guide has to make a safety call to cancel while underway, that should not be penalized. The trip cancellation insurance is a far better idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

This is some duuumb self-congratulatory rationalization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

This is some duuumb self-congratulatory rationalization.

What's dumb about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I read everyone in that group (men, women) decided to use the guides precisely because they were avid outdoorspeople and competent (the women more so than the men) AND also recognized their limitations and were not reckless so they wanted an extra layer of expertise and safety.

The guides were the ones who ultimately decided behind close doors what the course of action should be but I don't think that at this time their specific reasoning is known or that it will necessary will be.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYT gifted article in this thread explains it so well from the perspective of two survivors. Reading about the weather conditions that day shows what a bad decision was made all around. Remaining in the Huts was an option and the road their cars were on was closed. No one was getting out or in by car that day. It’s mind boggling and tragic.

I was curious about the bit about the roads being closed. If they had lived, were they going to be trapped in their cars? It makes no sense. The group think aspect is fascinating. No one spoke up and questioned the guide's plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

IMO when you choose to have children you also choose to put their needs ahead of yours. You need to try to stay alive. This whole “I’m a better mom when I’m happy” is just a BS excuse to do whatever you want. This is what made mom happy is cold comfort to a child without a parent. When they go to college you can carry on as you like.

+1 So very true!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

IMO when you choose to have children you also choose to put their needs ahead of yours. You need to try to stay alive. This whole “I’m a better mom when I’m happy” is just a BS excuse to do whatever you want. This is what made mom happy is cold comfort to a child without a parent. When they go to college you can carry on as you like.

+1 So very true!!

Right! You can still go cycling just do it on a path instead of the road. Swim in the ocean, where they have life guards. Climb well traveled rock walls with ropes instead of free climbing. People act like it’s some and knit or nothing. Having people you love and people who love you in your life requires that you consider them and how your actions and choices affect them. It’s called being an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

IMO when you choose to have children you also choose to put their needs ahead of yours. You need to try to stay alive. This whole “I’m a better mom when I’m happy” is just a BS excuse to do whatever you want. This is what made mom happy is cold comfort to a child without a parent. When they go to college you can carry on as you like.

+1 So very true!!

Right! You can still go cycling just do it on a path instead of the road. Swim in the ocean, where they have life guards. Climb well traveled rock walls with ropes instead of free climbing. People act like it’s some and knit or nothing. Having people you love and people who love you in your life requires that you consider them and how your actions and choices affect them. It’s called being an adult.

PP here. +1 I'm in total agreement. I'm an outdoorsy type person, but not unrealistic about taking unnecessary risks.