Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion 5 Most Dangerous Peaks in the US

Spoiler alert, oh, just read it for yourself.

Link to article

So... no Mt Whitney -- strange. Based on the years I've been here, Whitney claims several lives a year. Half Dome far fewer -- maybe once every few years.

Don't forget the deaths along the trail: Both Vernal Falls and Nevada Falls have claimed several victims.

Following article notes 18 deaths (two suicides), and a few survivals.
http://hikehalfdome.com/accidents/

Still would seem fewer than Whitney.

Whitney is certainly more dangerous than Half Dome. I'm not familiar with the others on the list (although they all appear to be more dangerous than Half Dome). As scary as the cable can be to many people, that actually makes it safer as people are extra cautious. Besides, the cables are only open when there is no snow. With Whitney, people tend to underestimate it and take chances to bag the summit. And then there is the altitude to cloud one's judgement, plus the likelihood of hiking a portion of the trail in darkness. There's no comparison really.

Bruce, you are so right. There is no comparison between Whitney and Half Dome. Someone said Half Dome is like a walk in the park compared to Whitney and they were absolutely right. I was actually surprised and frightened at how dangerous the Whitney hike was! You have to be very careful and be able to make clear headed decisions on whether to proceed when you have altitude sickness, are very fatigued, etc.

Sorry: Dumb article, clickbait headline. More and more typical of "Outside" ragazine. No definition or criteria for "dangerous" no stats at all on a couple and no facts at all on Half-Dome, norecognition of technical routes or climbs, so no distinction between trails and class 5 climbing, no weighting for numbers visiting. And come on, Denali doesn't make the list? Come on. Its just an arbitrary list: no meaning, no help. OF course, the title is not "The five most dangerous, but "Five OF the most dangerous", so I suppose it is accurate if means something like "Five of the 200 or so most dangerous" "Outside" has long since made my subscription cancellation pile, along with "Sierra" and the LL Bean Catalog

I agree with Salty's comments on the quality of Outside.

As far as Half Dome v. Whitney, I'm tempted to disagree. I think that Half Dome's shorter length, and closer proximity to a major tourist destination may just make it more dangerous.

Now, I agree the steepness of the cables does usually force hikers to be more attentive and cautious, but the sheer number of people who have made the trek convinces others that they can, and will make it. Further, the sheer number of people who attempt it implies that it probably is not that hard. So, arguably, Half Dome entices more unprepared people than Whitney.

Now, for sure Whitney creates the same phenomena, but I think that the greater length (exceeding 20 miles), the long-standing trail quota, and higher altitude stand as more of a deterrent for people to try than exists for would-be Half-Dome summiteers.

Plus, I think Half Dome has more deaths than Whitney. I can't remember where that notion comes from if someone told me or I read it somewhere, but if someone knows the numbers I'd love to see them.

But this is just my opinion.

> Plus, I think Half Dome has more deaths than Whitney. I can't remember where that notion comes from if someone told me or I read it somewhere, but if someone knows the numbers I'd love to see them.

Snacker:
Being here in "FresYes", any time someone is lost/hurt/missing in Yosemite, the local news jumps all over it. And myself being a heavy news reader, I can say with pretty good accuracy that Half Dome doesn't get the fatalities and injuries that Whitney does.

In fact, just in the past week, a teenager visiting from Israel was taking a selfie at the top of Nevada Falls, and slipped and went down to his death. That isn't a Half Dome fatality, but things like that are reported here whenever they happen, and it's really rare that I wouldn't see them.

Good to know.

The national park should keep detailed records, yes?

Nevada and Vernal are a whole other death trap.

Off The Wall

I dont know about Half Dome, but Mt. Baldy in SoCal is surely not dangerous than Whitney. I hiked Baldy 6 times, and recently finished a day hike of Whitney. No one who has done both will say Baldy is even close to Whitney in the dangerous category.

In the summer - I completely agree. In winter though, Baldy can be and has been deadly - in particular on the backbone and in the bowl with ice/snow/slides.

A mountain isn’t dangerous just because it is a doofus magnet.

What is the "most dangerous" mountain in the world?

Everest? - nope.

K2? - nope

Annapurna? nope

It is Mt Blanc.

- talking about gross yearly total deaths , not percentage chance of dying on an individual mountain. (ie., statistics depends on what your definition of is is).

Why Mt Blanc? Because it is a playground for thousands of hikers, climbers, skiers, boarders, etc. Near population centers and money and easy to go there in sheer huge numbers.

Baldy is kind of a weird anomaly, as it seems every year, a few people die on it in the Winter time. Just two or three years ago, the ice was horrific in so many spots, but people in tennies kept hiking it, as well as Icehouse, Cucamongo and Ontario. Didn't work out well for many. Pretty safe in the other seasons, but you really need to understand that there are many places with steep dropoffs. Whitney, well, it seems a lot of people get in trouble from not being prepared. I mean, really, it's freeking 22 miles if you take the main trail, and that downhill, mostly rocks, isn't exactly easy if you're tired. I'm suprised Angel's landing didn't make this (stupid) article, as about 10 people have died on that in the last 15 years of so. But, Angel's landing is a bit more show than it is difficult.

I agree with the comments re: Outside, and stopped reading it years ago. Am familiar with the mountains in question, and agree with Dr. Lankford. If you've ever been on Mt. Blanc, or taken the trams from Chamonix and gondola over to the VC above Courmayer, you'll be amazed at the number of people on that peak.

Agreed, not a good article, but even bad articles can stimulate interesting discussion.

They don't even get the the SoCal mountain right. Bad article poorly researched.