Is Burning Man still dangerous?

[geekster]

I believe the size of the event would adjust so that the lack of rules wouldn't be a problem. If you were to go back to the old days of no mapped streets, no speed limits, no fence, bring back firearms, playa surfing, etc. .... the size of the event would naturally adjust to fit the rule set. And the National Guard could set up a training combat hospital and medevac unit.

[Hedy]

[quote="geekster"]I believe the size of the event would adjust so that the lack of rules wouldn't be a problem. If you were to go back to the old days of no mapped streets, no speed limits, no fence, bring back firearms, playa surfing, etc. .... the size of the event would naturally adjust to fit the rule set.[/quote]

That's a really good point. If it were to becone as renegade as it was, that in itself would probably deter many people from attending. It would eventually adjust to a smaller size, as word spread that it may not be as "hospitable" as it once was.

[Chai Guy]

Do more people necessitate more rules? If so, why?

Do more rules result in a safer experience, if so how?


My theory is that the more rules are implemented the more people try to break them.

I don't believe that 40,000 people need any more or less rules than 400*



(*The one exception I'd make would be for things such as environmental impact, i.e. closing the hot springs, since the impact of 40,000 people in such an area would cause long term damage/effects).

[Zulegoona]

More people = more idiots = more danger = kind of reminds me of how the Bush junta came to power.

but then again they claim to want to get government off the backs of the people..... while they tap there phones.

[geekster]

I have one major problem with a "back to the future" scenario ... people getting run over in their tents while they are asleep. That just plain sucks and there really isn't anything you can do to avoid being run over by some drunken bozo who is just cruising across the playa playing "Look ma! No brains!" and I sure as hell don't want to pack in enough jersey wall to surround the camp.

[Hedy]

[quote="Chai Guy"]Do more people necessitate more rules? If so, why?

Do more rules result in a safer experience, if so how? [/quote]


1) Well, I don't think that because there's more people, you NEED more rules. It does seem that the more populated it becomes, that there are more rules laid down. I think that's in the organizer's ballpark, they are the ones that make most of the rules, no? (And I mean the "official" rules like speed limits and fire regulations, etc.) Then you have officials like the NV health dept. keeping an eye on food service, etc.

2) I think that more rules make for a perceived safer experience. For example people may go in with the perception that, hey, there's medical services there... if something happens to me, I can go get stitched up. (I don't know when medical services came along {perhaps they were always there?}).

[HughMungus]

I don't believe that 40,000 people need any more or less rules than 400*

400 people = everybody knows someone or knows someone who knows someone and it's easy to keep people from doing stupid shit that puts others at risk.

40,000 people = enough anonymity that people do a lot of stupid shit.

Honestly, if it takes more and more rules to make burning man viable, fine. I don't need to have a fire outside my tent, shoot guns, drive wherever I want as fast as I want, etc. to experience Burning Man. Anyone who says otherwise is pining for days long gone.

[geekster]

You have a good point, Hugh. When you live in a small town of 400 people, there isn't a lot of woodwork to hide in. It is easier to be held personally accountable for shit. Maybe Burning Man needs a different layout (ALERT: old topic coming around again!) set up as interconnected boroughs. That way each borough can be smaller, people get to know each other better, and it makes it harder to be totally anonymous. Not impossible, mind you, but a little harder. Harder to plan too, I guess. As big as the event is, you would be talking 10 boroughs of 4000 ... still pretty big. Probably too much of a logistics headache.

[Kundalini]

Paul Harvey, the newsboy, used to have a saying:

"Your rights end where my nose begins."

So it follows that when you have more noses, you have fewer rights.

[geekster]

Code: Select all

So it follows that when you have more noses, you have fewer rights.

But if chickens had bloomers, we would eat elephants.

Huh?

I think Hugh had the right idea. With 400 people it is easy enough to wait till the asshat goes to sleep, write "asshat" on his forehead with sharpie and everyone knows who to avoid. With 40000 people, chances are good you are never going to find where the idiot is sleeping and instead of one asshat, you how have 100 of them. 100 asshats can do considerable damage. Remember the basic laws of stupidity:

1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

2. The probability that a certain person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

5-corollary A stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.

From:

THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY
by Carlo M. Cipolla

Who is (or was at one time) an economics professor at UC Berkeley.

http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html

[HughMungus]

You have a good point, Hugh. When you live in a small town of 400 people, there isn't a lot of woodwork to hide in. It is easier to be held personally accountable for shit. Maybe Burning Man needs a different layout (ALERT: old topic coming around again!) set up as interconnected boroughs. That way each borough can be smaller, people get to know each other better, and it makes it harder to be totally anonymous. Not impossible, mind you, but a little harder. Harder to plan too, I guess. As big as the event is, you would be talking 10 boroughs of 4000 ... still pretty big. Probably too much of a logistics headache.

Good point. I think you and I both care about the "feel" of the event. '05 was my first year where I felt like I was actually "doing it right, again" and I was afraid that the old feeling from '97 and '98 might be gone ('00 and '01 were my party/wasted/somewhat meaningless years). It wasn't. It's still there. I think that since we're at 40,000 now instead of 20,000 and that center camp is more than just a bunch of hay bails, that people are naturally a little more protective and exclusive. But the same old Burner spirit is still in those people and if you show that you're not just some jerkoff yahoo that they're still as inviting and welcome as ever. They WANT to be; fuck, people like me don't set-up public camps for no reason. We do it because we want to give and because we want to find other people like us.

Anyway, I think you can still get to know other people. We went down the street, met some people running a bar camp, met them, met a couple there who we hung out with that night, everybody was cool, etc. The key is that we were able to find the good and leave the "bad". By "bad" i mean simply people who just weren't compatible. I guess the more people there are, the more selective we have to be and therefore the more work we have to do. That's fine with me. I wouldn't trade all this for anything else. Just never forget that it's what WE make it.

[geekster]

Sure, you can still meet LOTS of people and there are a million ways to do it. If you can't seem to figure out a way to just walk up and talk to people without seeming weird, go to the post office, grab some mail that needs to be delivered and deliver it! Now you have a perfectly acceptable reason to walk into a strange camp and talk to someone without seeming creepy or anything. Amazing how those little things are there to help us interact.

But the flip side of all of that is that it is easier to avoid contact if that is your goal too. You can hole up in an RV and only come out in the dark of night if you want.

[Bob]

At one time the prevailing attitude seemed to be, "You might want to be sure you know what you're doing with that flame thrower, as the nearest hospital is two hours away" now it's "Don't steal the street signs because we might need to send an ambulance to rescue someone".

There's been a med tent & staff since 1994 or 95, and the hospitals haven't gotten any closer.

I must say, it's a densely populated city, and the people are getting denser every year.

[Chai Guy]

I think people are people. Ever have to eject someone from a private party? I've seen asshats in gatherings of 5, 50, 500 and everything on up.

True, a "mob" mentality can exist in larger groups, but I've never really seen this happen at the event. The closest thing would be the actual burn and even that is pretty well behaved.

There's been a med tent & staff since 1994 or 95, and the hospitals haven't gotten any closer

When did the life flight helicopters arrive? 97? 98? When did the clean needle exchange arrive? When do we get to see defibrillators at each street corner?

[cowboyangel]

only danger is not having a witty comeback for the BRC Post Office...

[Rockdad]

When do we get to see defibrillators at each street corner?

Is that a serious question at $1200 a pop for the home version? maybe on all ESD vehicles...

[Desert Duck]

Hey, that's GREAT!!! Defibrillator fights!! EXcellent idea!!!

[Bob]

When did the life flight helicopters arrive? 97? 98?

There were a couple medivac flights my first year, '96.

When did the clean needle exchange arrive? When do we get to see defibrillators at each street corner?

Does anybody care to make a logical, supportable argument that Burning Man was more or less "dangerous" at any point in its history?

And forgive me for being a little annoyed at how lightly you people take "danger" (and vandalism), from the perspective of DPW.

[Chai Guy]

Does anybody care to make a logical, supportable argument that Burning Man was more or less "dangerous" at any point in its history?

You might want to go back read some of my posts in this thread, I've been attempting to point out some specific instances of regulation enacted in the name of safety, let me recap for you, specifically the banning of the following items/activities from the event:

Shooting
Firearms (included unloaded firearms)
weapons
driving
tiki torches
vehicles with fixed sails
burning magnesium engine blocks
burning your "art" without a permit

And forgive me for being a little annoyed at how lightly you people take "danger" (and vandalism), from the perspective of DPW.

Just for the record Bob, I made it perfectly clear that stealing street signs was in fact vandalism, that stealing is wrong and that I in no way supported it. I'm simply bringing to light the fact that it's only been recently that I've heard the word "safety" associated with their theft.

[Desert Duck]

We're actually proud to have our signs stolen, it means we're making good art. I even made a few of mine completely unique to make them even more collectible. The signs are remade every year, in a different style, and all ring roads are renamed. It's one less thing to tear down and pack away. Let 'em steal the signs, it's our gift to the community at large.
The work of making and packing and shipping is actually reduced by their not being there at the end. As far as emergency vehicles, that's what GPS is for.

[Bob]

Bitching and whining like peeping baby birds about Burning Man policies, BLM permit stipulations, state law, federal law and whatnot does not equate with demonstrating proof that Burning Man is more or less dangerous.

I'm happy to add anecdotal evidence, though.

I didn't go last year partly because I was bummed about somebody from DPW crashing & dying on the road after the event due (my opinion) to fatigue from cleaning up after you people.

The year before, 2004, Camp Carp set up its infamous Ramp of Death early in the week, Tuesday I think. The Ramp of Death is just a short plank leaning on a 4x4, and we dare passersby to fly the ramp on their bikes or art cars. I witnessed one guy planting his entire face and bloodying it up, and a short time later another guy going ass over teakettle, landing hard, and breaking his collarbone.

So... did anyone ban ramps of deaths last year?

[Desert Duck]

Actually, her name was Stevie. Did you know her, or what the actual situation was? She was trailering and jackknifed. Want more details? Find 'em yourself, you sicko. Stevie was a kickass DPW'er. 'Nuff said.

[Chai Guy]

I'm sorry for you loss Bob, I had no idea.

[Bob]

Not my loss -- she's the one who's dead.

As I recall, her last work was a couple weeks after the event, and actually she was an operator & rigger on the art support crew, not DPW. David Best's people had skipped, and she was going out alone on the Bobcat scooping the remains of the temple into dumpsters. Understand that as soon as campers leave, all the dust loosened up in the camping area immediately starts blowing northeast and piling up around any obstruction, so the temple debris had dunes a couple feet high on top, extending a couple hundred feet left and right. Imagine trying to tackle that on a Bobcat. Alone. In the wind. Couple days later, she's on the road pulling a funky trailer she bought at the last minute and hadn't really checked out, with an underpowered little truck.

So IMO Burning Man is still dangerous, though I don't have the data in front of me to really judge whether it's more or less. Everybody on the crews ends up with cracked hands, face & feet, infected lungs & other body parts, intestinal complaints, trashed livers, broken homes, $500 trucks, and sandy cracks. On the other hand, they house the crews in a proper trailer park, and they don't have to eat ranch food.



Desert Duck -- I don't know who the fuck you are, but fuck you too.

[Chai Guy]

So anyway, my point is exactly that, Burning Man isn't really any more or less dangerous than when it first began. We have more rules, less freedom, a greater expectation of safety, and a false sense of security. We expect the powers that be to do more, while we do less.

Just like life in the rest of the U.S.A.

[Bob]

I entirely agree there is more writ by the org, the agencies, and the various communities [sic] that consist of warnings, rules, taboos, pat assumptions, and urban legends. I just don't agree that this is evidence that Burning Man is more or less dangerous, and if you want to make valid comparisons over time you might want to start with the original beach burn and not some allegedly glorious drive-by conflagration in the desert.

In the real world, an agency eg OSHA, FDA, FEMA, NRC or EPA can purport or appear to promise all kinds of danger avoidance. All you have to do to negate all that is not provide inspection, reporting, etc., either as imagined by those who wrote the rules, or by the communities the rules were designed to serve. Most of what the org does to this day is simply warn as appropriate, based on actual experience, IMO. The laws that govern use of BLM lands haven't changed much since Burning Man has been using the playa, AFAIK.

[theCryptofishist]

When do we get to see defibrillators at each street corner?

Is that a serious question at $1200 a pop for the home version? maybe on all ESD vehicles...

On the abulances, therefor available on radio from the moment ESD (or even the Rangers) get on scene. Learn CPR so you can keep the brain alive until the medics get there.

[theCryptofishist]

As I recall, her last work was a couple weeks after the event, and actually she was an operator & rigger on the art support crew, not DPW. David Best's people had skipped, and she was going out alone on the Bobcat scooping the remains of the temple into dumpsters..

So dang, that's an even better reason not to have given him the temple last year. Thanks for telling me, Bob.

So IMO Burning Man is still dangerous, though I don't have the data in front of me to really judge whether it's more or less. Everybody on the crews ends up with cracked hands, face & feet, infected lungs & other body parts, intestinal complaints, trashed livers, broken homes, $500 trucks, and sandy cracks. On the other hand, they house the crews in a proper trailer park, and they don't have to eat ranch food.

I hate the damn split between dpw and other volenteers and the dpw and the participants. I can see why it happens, but I still hate. And if I've annoyed you, Bob, I suppose I can take the heat, but I do like a lot of what you've said in this thread.

[Lorgasm]

I believe its just as, if not more, dangerous in the default world than at Burningman. I've always felt more safe with my folks at the burn than anywhere else. Hell, here in the default world you can get killed or mamed in an accident caused by a police officer during one of those high speed chases and they will not be at fault. Sure, the new law says that they can be at fault if there was "just cause" for their chase. Hey, who is kidding who.

You can also be at the wrong place at the wrong time in a drive by shooting, a robbery, etc.

At Burningman, we all share the same goal and the same desires. We participate, we share, we take care of each other. We learn from past mistakes of ourselves and others. I am very sorry of our lost loved ones in prior burns. They are still with us.

Burningman is and will always be special to me. Dangerous? Perhaps. So are many other things. Just be nice and Please be careful.

[Rockdad]

No wading pools or livestock troughs allowed... Damn all the fun is gone!

Special Recreation Permit Stipulations - Burning Man 2006 to 2010
Burning Man Special Stipulations Page 10 3/31/2006
a. BRC LLC shall provide state-certified emergency services at the event. At a minimum,
EMS services will be available at the paramedic level consistent with current Nevada
practices.
b. Inspecting the permitted area for any existing or new hazardous conditions, e.g., changing
weather conditions or other hazards that present risks to employees and/or participants.
c. Water used for public bathing, including water stored in portable wading pools, and
drinking water shall be approved (certified) by the Nevada Bureau of Health Protection
Services and Washoe/Pershing County District Health Departments in advance.
d. Portable swimming pools containing water, and that have a capacity of 50 gallons or
more, are prohibited. As used in this section, "pools" includes inflatable wading pools,
livestock troughs, and similar objects.

2006-2010 permit: -

The appendix has the permit conditions.
http://www.nv.blm.gov/Winnemucca/NEPA/b ... ingman.htm