In reply to Robert Durran:
Well first of all the driving thing is a very poor example and I apologise for that. You know what it is like you get out of bed and your brain isn't in gear.
I disagree with your view that there is no such thing as best practice. As clearly there is. But before we get all hot under the collar I am not criticising at this point but exploring the notion of good practice.
Climbing is a risky activity, I think we can all agree on that, but when we talk about best or good practice we are really talking about how we manage that risk and it is not a black or white thing either. You may be very happy to solo a route, I do it, many people do it. It is the most natural and free form of climbing. I say this to establish that we take risks that others wouldn’t and which may be fatal to us. But the management of those risks comes under good practice. So for instance soloing whilst drunk would not make it into best practice. Even if you personally had done it loads of times and not got killed.
When we climb with others with ropes then we are doing it for a specific reasons. We are doing it to be sociable on one level but we are also doing it to manage the risk and in that situation there is best practice.
Good/best practice simply means “I want to get up this piece of rock as safe as possible within the constraints I have set for myself (ie trad, sport, ladders etc.)”
So you expect certain things.
Aside from ropes and gear….
You want an attentive belayer and a technical repertoire of skills commensurate with the grade/situation.
So for instance would you be happy to climb with someone who fell asleep while belaying you or went off for a piss (I have done this but I did tell them first and tied them off), would you be happy to climb on their 30 year old rope, indeed would you be happy to climb with them if they brought you up a climb and you discovered that they hadn’t even bothered to set up a belay? Climbing as we have said is inherently risky but a given situation is made more or less risky by our own actions. So in extremis we may find ourselves unable to comply with “good” practice. We may well find ourselves in the margins of high risk where “What if?” is a high chance of failure but there is little choice.
>Maybe they are quite happy soloing and it allows their partner to get other stuff >done (maybe putting on their boots, keeping warm, eating something etc.)
May be they are. May be they are both happy with that. But there is no escaping that you have added an avoidable risk. The question at what point for yourself is lack of good practice unacceptable? Or if you really don't like the term "good/best" practice at what point to you consider practice to be "stupid" or "insane"?
And finally.
>The analogy is nonsense. Driving at 100mph is braking [I love that] the law. There are no >rules (thank goodness) in climbing.
Criminal charges were considered by a court in Heerlen in 2003 when an experienced
climber belaying another experienced climber was distracted by other people and
unclipped the belay. His friend fell and was killed. The belayer was convicted of
manslaughter and given a six month suspended prison sentence.
.....
In 2008 a criminal court in Amsterdam considered manslaughter charges brought on
similar facts. A climber was belaying his friend on one climb whilst his girlfriend
was belayed by somebody else whilst she climbed another route. When she
descended and untied from her rope the defendant also untied although his leader was
still high on the wall. He fell and died. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter
but did not receive a prison sentence. The judgment was appealed and the belayer
was found to be not guilty on the curious ground that he had untied himself from the
rope in a series of automatic actions.
......
A climber, who was injured when his climbing partner failed to belay properly
successfully brought a claim before a court in Castellon in 2000 because the belayer
was negligent.
......
In another case in Michigan (Mankoski v- Mieras) the Claimant was lead climbing
and fell and hit the floor because the Defendant failed to belay properly. They were
both experienced climbers and friends who had gone to the wall together. The
Defendant argued that the Claimant was aware of and accepted the inherent risks of
injury in this activity and had signed a release (waiver) at the request of the wall
operator. The court accepted the Defendants argument and the release signed by the
Claimant was accepted as proof that the Plaintiff had accepted the risk.
Don’t be getting any ideas now.
Post edited at 17:54