Ueli Steck Killed

Runners must have this explained in a way they understand:

If Steck were a runner he didn't die in a race. He died on an easy run when he was run over by a car. There was nothing dramatic about his run that day. He took the risk of running on the right side and got killed when he forgot to pay the necessary attention to the environment .

So if you're killed by a car when you're out running, is it because of hubris?

we all take risks wrote:

Runners must have this explained in a way they understand:

If Steck were a runner he didn't die in a race. He died on an easy run when he was run over by a car. There was nothing dramatic about his run that day. He took the risk of running on the right side and got killed when he forgot to pay the necessary attention to the environment .

So if you're killed by a car when you're out running, is it because of hubris?

Spot on. Thank you.

If you think this is the same risk profile of going for a run and being hit by a car, you are both mistaken.

You can't compare it like that. Not using a safety line when mountaineering is like a runner running in the middle of the road at night with black clothing and wondering why he got hit.

Social Faux Paw wrote:

You can't compare it like that. Not using a safety line when mountaineering is like a runner running in the middle of the road at night with black clothing and wondering why he got hit.

It was during a training climb. He was on relatively easy terrain. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Harambe wrote:

Social Faux Paw wrote:

You can't compare it like that. Not using a safety line when mountaineering is like a runner running in the middle of the road at night with black clothing and wondering why he got hit.

It was during a training climb. He was on relatively easy terrain. You have no idea what you are talking about.

On runners do easy training runs around the block. It doesn't make you a hero for ignoring obvious safety measures.

Harambe wrote:

we all take risks wrote:

Runners must have this explained in a way they understand:

If Steck were a runner he didn't die in a race. He died on an easy run when he was run over by a car. There was nothing dramatic about his run that day. He took the risk of running on the right side and got killed when he forgot to pay the necessary attention to the environment .

So if you're killed by a car when you're out running, is it because of hubris?

Spot on. Thank you.

Stupid analogy. These mountain idiots die at astronomically higher rate than runners being run over by cars.

Cha-Ching wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Spot on. Thank you.

Stupid analogy. These mountain idiots die at astronomically higher rate than runners being run over by cars.

Wrong. What Steck was doing was essentially a day hike. Akin to, perhaps, a midweek medium-long run.

Everyone here just proves my point. Some of you seem to run for the 'wrong' reasons. Then again narcissism is likely necessary for most people to dedicate themselves to something as mundane as running.

It's clear the weekend warriors, desk jockeys, and 17:45 5kers of Letsrun know that Steck is the kind of man their wives fantasize about. So they grasp any attempt to disparage a great sportsman, athlete, and adventurer even after a tragic death.

All your lives and boring and mundane. Even worse, your reactions prove that you are all aware of this, yet do nothing to change it. Enjoy wasting away...

Amen

Like I said on Page 1 we have many girly-men here that wear tight super tight jeans and even though Hetero, they try to identify as "girl".

If athletes here understood what this man did all the posts would be filled with respect and acknowledgment.

Anyhow 18-22 minute 5000 runner ...

Unimportant

And if you are 14 to 15 minute 5000

Still unimportant

Harambe wrote:

Cha-Ching wrote:

Stupid analogy. These mountain idiots die at astronomically higher rate than runners being run over by cars.

Wrong. What Steck was doing was essentially a day hike. Akin to, perhaps, a midweek medium-long run.

Everyone here just proves my point. Some of you seem to run for the 'wrong' reasons. Then again narcissism is likely necessary for most people to dedicate themselves to something as mundane as running.

Harambe you are dumber than a gorilla.

dirtbag runner wrote:

Dying is not a moral failing. It's an inevitability. Ueli accomplished more during a typical month of his life than anyone who spends their day trying to figure out how to preserve their miserable, boring and unremarkable life instead of taking a risk to push the boundaries of what's humanly possible.

Agree 100%.

What's better, living a mundane, 9-5, fearful life taking no risks with little happiness and living to 80 or really living, enjoying life to the fullest, taking life by the balls and dying at 40.

Sounds like most of the wussies here would pick the no-risk choice. Sad.

Who are we to judge anyway?

we all take risks wrote:

Runners must have this explained in a way they understand:

If Steck were a runner he didn't die in a race. He died on an easy run when he was run over by a car. There was nothing dramatic about his run that day. He took the risk of running on the right side and got killed when he forgot to pay the necessary attention to the environment .

So if you're killed by a car when you're out running, is it because of hubris?

I'd like to know how they got that car on Everest.

Too self aware wrote:

It's clear the weekend warriors, desk jockeys, and 17:45 5kers of Letsrun know that Steck is the kind of man their wives fantasize about. So they grasp any attempt to disparage a great sportsman, athlete, and adventurer even after a tragic death.

All your lives and boring and mundane. Even worse, your reactions prove that you are all aware of this, yet do nothing to change it. Enjoy wasting away...

+1

The truth hurts.

food for thought. wrote:

Who are we to judge anyway?

The victors always write the history books. And with how Steck caused a riot amongst hundreds of Sherpas because he almost killed some of them with falling ice by not listening to their instructions, I think we can summarize that Steck was a narcissistic jackass. He even had the gall to insult the Sherpas afterwards.

I climbed some 14ers in Colorado with a guy who did rapid ascents of Denali and some Himalayan peaks. He went to Everest twice but did not make it to the summit for reasons I can't recall. What I do recall is how he conceptualized risk in mountaineering, i.e. that some risk is skill-dependent and other risk random. I don't know what happened to Steck. Perhaps he was careless or had a momentary lapse of attention that proved fatal. There certainly are things that can happen on those mountains to kill you irrespective of your skill level and judgment, even on relatively mundane terrain.

I wouldn't judge Steck unless he had dependents. If not, his risk is his risk and perhaps he wasn't a guy who prioritized living to old age.

Not easy at all. Steck was getting ready to climb the West Ridge, the most dangerous route of them all with a 100% death to success ratio. For every successful climb there is a death.

This is what the Southwest route looks like. The easiest way, one in 15 die there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfxnMN3VjZc

What a stupid, selfish way to die. He should have gone out the American way (choose one of the following):

a) overeat, under-exercise, develop metabolic syndrome, and die of heart failure at great cost to our healthcare system and taxpayers.

b) drug overdose.