That chart kinda confuses me.

For one thing, I feel like cars shouldn’t be included because that’s people being idiots in cars. I guess if the park is designed in such a way that cars can be a real hazard (like trails that cross roads), then it would make the park more dangerous, but idk; seems weird to include them when people get run over all the time, regardless of whether they’re in a national park or not.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s not a hazard unique to the area, so unless the park is poorly designed in a way that notibly amplifies the danger of vehicles, it probably shouldn’t be included.

(Edit: I just realized it’s also counting suicides as well, which again, people can commit suicide anywhere, why is it being counted against the park?)

Another is that there are multiple “dangerous” parks that have few or no fatalities, and very few SAR operations. I know it’s based on per million visitors, but when you have less than 5~10 of each, then to me that’s a fluke. The park could be extremely safe and had a visitor group or family that did something dumbfoundingly stupid and got themselves lost or killed.

If I understand the chart, it looks like the SAR is per million in 2023, while the fatalities is per million is over the 2007-2023 period. The former is more reasonable when considering that the listed visitor count is for 2023, but fatalities per million is going to get fucky when you have less than a million visitors and it’s over a 16yr period. It’d be more reasonable to either list fatalities per million for 2023, or use the average visitor count and SAR incidents per million over the 2007-2023 period.

It’s an interesting chart, but I think the methodology might be flawed. I’m curious if anyone else feels the same way.

Kind of disappointing that the second safest park, Indiana Dunes, has a photo not of the national park but the adjacent state park.

I’m bummed that Death Valley wasn’t higher up on the list. I mean, it’s right there in the name.