Wapama Falls claims another

[Wandering Daisy]

#3 is total speculation. It may just be a "feel good" option, not a solution. This is a "problem" that may not have a "solution". Risks simply have to be accepted and mitigated by each individual.

Education is more effective. To that end, any "sign" should tell a compelling graphic story- perhaps picture of those who died, a photos of conditions when they died, vs conditions when the bridge is safe. Put big markers on the bridge showing how high the water can get in the late afternoon when the bridge is dry in the morning. Remind people that spending a cold night on the her side of the bridge beats dying crossing. Have a graph showing, to scale, the diurnal creek fluctuations. And the liability/legal aspect of any change would have to be addressed.

Given all that I am fine with #1.

[Jimr]

It seems to me that Mother Nature puts up this big, blatant sign when the conditions on the bridge are hazardous.

[kpeter]

Given the high traffic on this bridge, the number of amateurish individuals who dayhike to it, and its location in a destination spot in the world's most famous national park, I opt for option 4.

4. Improve the bridge so it is safe(r) in high water.

Seriously, if there were this many deaths at the intersection of a town, they would put in a stoplight. If there were this many deaths on a curve on a highway, they would put it at the top of the highway improvement list. But we are so used to our national parks being systematically underfunded that no one even thought of fixing the bridge. People who die in intersections or on highway curves are often foolish too, but we fix those problems because we don't believe that being foolish and/or irresponsible always deserves death.

I'm not sure what form a fix would take. Obviously, more and better railings would help. Probably a better surface area that can't become slippery. More needs to be done at the ends of the bridge where high water submerges them. There are good trail engineers out there. They need to think harder.

[c9h13no3]

3) Install a sign at the trailhead. Significantly reduce fatalities.

I think #3 is the best option.

I think you seriously over estimate the value of another sign. Have you seen the California Prop 65 signs?

Option #2.

[markskor]

On a related subject...restricting trails and issuing multiple warnings seems to have little effect on hiker safety.

According to a new study, implementation in 2010 of permit-only access to Yosemite National Park's Half Dome cable handrails along the final ascent of this iconic landmark reduced the number of people on the summit at one time, but this did not result in a significant reduction in the overall toll of associated human suffering and mortality, or search and rescue (SAR) activity and costs.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 133726.htm

[rightstar76]

.

[rlown]

why would you need a sign to tell you the water is too high? This is a common sense issue.
I guess you could craft a sign and get the park to post it.
Hikers will take a picture of the sign and push ahead.

[AlmostThere]

The real problem are the folks who go and cheat death, ahead of the ones who die. Everyone who doesn't know better -- there are legions of these visiting Yosemite, whom you can lecture, shout at, hand pamphlets to and warn til you are blue in the face, they are NOT going to get it because they are NOT hikers and backpackers in the same way most of us here discussing this to death -- will see the folks making it and make the blanket assumption that it's do-able.

Saw a young couple this weekend parked next to a sign that said "wilderness restoration area do not camp" -- a mosquito factory right next to their tent, ground soaked and a huge pond on the lakeshore. Their rationale -- "there's a fire ring so it must be a campsite."

As long as there are people who cheat death by darting across bridges being flooded, and show the way by ignoring common sense and regulations and safe practices, there will be people damaging the wilderness, and dying committing stupidities. All it takes is a buddy who says "It's not that bad" to get some poor wilderness newbie killed. Peer pressure, peak fever -- unless you have a certain amount of experience yourself you're susceptible. I got into some pretty dumb situations before I knew better. Fortunately, I know better now. It's too bad some of these folks won't get the chance to learn from mistakes.

There are hundreds of people all over social media asking if anyone has been to such and such location, looking for status reports on places in the Sierra that are still socked in with snow or only accessed by crossing deadly amounts of snowmelt. If I do post an answer, I'm called paranoid or chicken little. Hopefully the folks who go anyway are turning around instead of being stupid.

[c9h13no3]

I'm called paranoid or chicken little.

Yep, I called you chicken little.

Your warnings were pretty terrible. I had to leave that group, it was either clueless newbies, or folks like you who would literally say "there's nowhere you can go, everywhere is bad, cancel your trips".

What you're doing is the same as the California Prop 65 signs. You cry wolf a million times, put up a million signs, and you dull the efficacy of the warning to the point where it's useless. Tell people where they can go, or how to mitigate risk. Then you're actually teaching.

But I do agree with you on the average experience of the Yosemite visitor. That place needs to be idiot-proof, because the average visitor knows very little. And for those of you saying "screw the newbies, let 'em die, they should know high water is dangerous", you know you've also been asked by that clueless newbie pointing at Middle Cathedral Rock "is that Half-Dome?"

[AlmostThere]

People recommending to lemmings that they cross water that they shouldn't cross deserve other names.

Direct observation suggests that people will do anything for the perfect selfie, including die. If people have to ask for conditions reports, they aren't the right people to go there and do that.

Right now there are streams where there are not ordinarily streams, the seasonal streams are high, the year round streams are higher, and people are getting lost in places like Kaiser Wilderness where the lakes are still frozen. We're still helping them out.

People are flooding into the wilderness after years of drought thinking it will be the same as last June, the June before, or three Junes ago, and being surprised, and going anyway.

So you do you. Better safe than wasting taxpayer dollars rescuing clueless after clueless.