French cliff closures

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 15 Jan 2023

Anyone else following the developing situation in France - the FFME used to 'guarantee' the state of the fixed gear, but after a bolt failure and serious accident they have withdrawn cover and many landowners are panicking and closing access to numerous cliffs - the magnificent Presles being the latest.

https://www.grimper.com/news-deconventionnement-interdiction-une-grande-par...

I think the French idea that if there is an accident then there is 'blame', appears to be behind this,

Chris

Post edited at 20:17
1
 French Erick 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Hi Chris,

It does not look good at all and sets a desastrous precedent. I fear that many landowners, small individuals and big corporations (EDF, ONC- formerly ONF) will all follow suit.

This could really impact climbing access in France as there’s talk of removing all equipment straight away. Even if the legal wrangling s came to a positive conclusion in a matter of a couple of years (likely more!) there would be huge swathes of crags debolted perhaps irremediably.

 I wonder what is the status of sport crags in the US, litigious country par excellence?

Is this the death of sport climbing in France? It could be though I hope not.

 I am currently in France for a few weeks and hope to touch base with the local climbers (one of whom is a devoted crag developer recently featured in Seb Bouins’ videos). Perhaps I will get some less alarming feedback!

2
 supersteve 16 Jan 2023
In reply to French Erick:

Similar situation in Fontainebleau:

https://www.tl2b.com/2022/12/bleau-une-interdiction-dun-petit-site.html?m=1

It's only a small area with a couple of boulders, but other Mairie's could easily follow suit.

1
 Mick Ward 16 Jan 2023
In reply to French Erick:

> Is this the death of sport climbing in France? It could be though I hope not.

Surely it would be the death of all climbing (except maybe Alpinism)? This time bomb has been quietly ticking away for years. 

If the bolts came out, what would people do? Embrace trad?? Unlikely, surely. But, if they did, wouldn't the accident rate soar? And isn't the issue not fixed gear per se but accident liability? 

Volenti non fit injuria? (The [legally] willing cannot be [legally] injured.)  This principle has always seemed to me our best legal defence. And it may be needed. These days, what happens in one country can spread very quickly indeed. 

Mick 

OP Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

We came across a recently erected sign at one of the crags we visited earlier in our tour (oddly I can't remember which one) which said "FFME - terrain de adventure - no liability accepted" despite being fully bolted. Seems such an obvious way forward - at least from a UK perspective,

Chris

 Michael Hood 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

In England and Wales i suspect it would be difficult to ban climbing in areas covered by CROW. Hopefully it would be similarly difficult to ban climbing in Scotland with its access laws. NI no idea but presumably similar to E&W or to S.

Apart from which, how would it be enforced in the UK, PC's waiting at the top of Pavey Ark to arrest you?

3
 Michael Hood 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Great, polluting the countryside with signs ☹️. In the UK there is significant tradition of signs ending up inside club huts 😁

And before anyone jumps, I know that we produce far more pollution than a few signs would.

Post edited at 08:32
33
 timjones 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Volenti non fit injuria? (The [legally] willing cannot be [legally] injured.)  This principle has always seemed to me our best legal defence. And it may be needed. These days, what happens in one country can spread very quickly indeed. 

I think that works with trad but possibly not with sport where many participants appear strangely unwilling to consider the obvious question of how good the fixed gear is.

In a world where landowners can be held liable for something as natural as "dangerous trees" it is hard to see how they cannot be liable for gear that has been installed by human hand

4
 Mick Ward 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris, Michael and timjones:

The best part of 30 years ago, the editor of a particular climbing mag asked me to review the then existing legal state of affairs in the UK and abroad (e.g. US, Australia) and make sense of it. I wrote a draft article arguing that, in my opinion, only two legal principles - Volenti non fit injuria and negligence were all that were needed to determine any legal case involving climbing, whether trad, sport, etc. Or indeed any other risk taking activity. (Caveat: I have absolutely no legal expertise!!!) 

The article never appeared but probably for other, unrelated reasons. But I still fail to see that this near 30 year old argument can't apply. 

It seems to me that other legal arguments, such as 'no liability accepted', access, sport versus trad, can be either blown through or circumvented. The principles above seem far more robust. 

However if something legally robust isn't adopted, we may have compulsory insurance, compulsory qualifications and compulsory continuing professional development. (The monetisation of climbing.) And my guess is that we'd have more - not fewer - accidents. 

Mick 

3
 nikoid 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

I only did my first via ferrata (in France) a few years back. I thought it was brilliant that you could just just jump on to them, no questions asked and how that would never happen in the UK. I put this down to the laissez-faire attitude of the French. So this latest development is certainly a surprise, at least to me.

Post edited at 09:42
1
 artif 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Surely this will hit the tourist industry hard, in some areas. I suspect some areas of France would be deserted if were not for the climbing.

1
 Dave Garnett 16 Jan 2023
In reply to artif:

> Surely this will hit the tourist industry hard, in some areas. I suspect some areas of France would be deserted if were not for the climbing.

There's the rub.  If large scale bolting is done specifically to provide a facility to attract tourist revenue, even if indirectly, it's quite difficult to rely on the argument that climbing is dangerous and climbers are expected to use their own good judgement.  What does that even mean in a situation where you have no way of assessing how safe fixed gear is and there's no alternative anyway?

 Alan Bates 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:  We came across a recently erected sign at one of the crags we visited earlier in our tour (oddly I can't remember which one) which said "FFME - terrain de adventure - no liability accepted" despite being fully bolted. Seems such an obvious way forward - at least from a UK perspective,

Chris

Hi Chris,

I live in the Pyrénées-Orientales, and the likes of the sign you refer to have been erected at locations such as Vingrau, where two sectors have been re-bolted in the past couple of years.  This scenario is actually a step forward, for a number of years before that climbing was banned at Vingrau.

Similar signs at Tautavel, Casteil, La Clape and Ultrera (South side - north face is still Interdit).

Post edited at 10:32
 jcw 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

The law also often relies on precedent. What relevant judgements if any directly related to the issue are there in France, Uk or indeed Kalymnos?

 Dave Garnett 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

> The best part of 30 years ago, the editor of a particular climbing mag asked me to review the then existing legal state of affairs in the UK and abroad (e.g. US, Australia) and make sense of it. I wrote a draft article arguing that, in my opinion, only two legal principles - Volenti non fit injuria and negligence were all that were needed to determine any legal case involving climbing, whether trad, sport, etc. Or indeed any other risk taking activity.

I agree in situations where the landowner can simply put up a sign saying 'dangerous rocks - you've been warned'.  Even better if they can put up a fence and a sign saying keep out, even if they then turn a blind eye to people climbing.  Actually, as long as they didn't do anything to encourage climbing or imply that it's safe, then I suspect they could get away with arguing that it would be obvious to any sensible person.  However, once a landowner (or someone with their permission) starts placing gear (even abseil points and belays accessible from the top) then, arguably, people using it have a reasonable expectation that the gear is fit for purpose.

I would guess that most people would agree that if they had an accident using fixed gear that turned out to have been incompetently or negligently installed (especially by some apparently authoritative organisation) that someone (or their insurers) would have some responsibility.  The climber's insurance company would certainly think so.  Where's the dividing line between that, and the consequences of the failure of an old bolt that hadn't been checked recently?  

Post edited at 10:46
6
Removed User 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

This is what happens when a climbing culture sells its soul at the crossroads and eschews the one true climbing style (trad).

Post edited at 10:46
33
 fred99 16 Jan 2023
In reply to timjones:

> In a world where landowners can be held liable for something as natural as "dangerous trees" it is hard to see how they cannot be liable for gear that has been installed by human hand

The difference here is that whilst they own the trees, they do not own gear that has been "left behind"* and installed by persons unknown.

* - In the same way that they do not own a helmet that has been forgotten.

 tjekel 16 Jan 2023
In reply to jcw:

That's why I maintain it is an incredible nonsense to market places as "safe" or "controlled" for climbing as Aris still does. It simply is not.

 jon 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Dave Garnett:

The accident that cost the FFME 1.6M€ and which is at the root of this shitstorm had nothing to do with bolt failure. It was a bloc pulled off by a climber which hit the belayer. This makes it all the more worrying as potentially it could affect other outdoor activities - mountain bikers, walkers etc...

 Dave Garnett 16 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> The accident that cost the FFME 1.6M€ and which is at the root of this shitstorm had nothing to do with bolt failure. It was a bloc pulled off by a climber which hit the belayer. This makes it all the more worrying as potentially it could affect other outdoor activities - mountain bikers, walkers etc...

Ah, ok.  That wasn't clear from what Chris originally posted, but from the letter in the link it has obviously spiralled pretty quickly into a major issue.  I guess it's good if the quality of the gear isn't being questioned but, as you say, the implications could be a lot broader.  

 Carless 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> We came across a recently erected sign at one of the crags we visited earlier in our tour (oddly I can't remember which one) which said "FFME - terrain de adventure - no liability accepted" despite being fully bolted. Seems such an obvious way forward - at least from a UK perspective,

> Chris

I've seen these signs at Brison Grand Falaise near Aix-les-Bains but not at the bottom of the crag. They are on the top of the first pitch as in beware if you go beyond this point

 lukevf 16 Jan 2023
In reply to jcw:

France is a civil law system.

 timjones 16 Jan 2023
In reply to fred99:

> The difference here is that whilst they own the trees, they do not own gear that has been "left behind"* and installed by persons unknown.

I'm not so confident, there seems to be a growing  expectation that you should make trees that are on your property safe. It seems entirely possible that a lawyer in pursuit of a nice fat fee could make the same argument about fixed gear.

 nikoid 16 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> The accident that cost the FFME 1.6M€ and which is at the root of this shitstorm had nothing to do with bolt failure. It was a bloc pulled off by a climber which hit the belayer. This makes it all the more worrying as potentially it could affect other outdoor activities - mountain bikers, walkers etc...

My understanding is the FFME is the equivalent of the BMC. You wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you went after the BMC after being hit by falling rock....would you?

1
 fred99 16 Jan 2023
In reply to timjones:

An owner could reasonably be expected to know they have trees - which take some time to grow - but surely they have a much better argument when it comes to denying even knowing that bolts exist - unless they are expected to regularly (daily ?) inspect every cliff on their property through binoculars. At least that's the argument I'd ask my lawyers to present against any "claims" from a schiester ambulance chaser. In fact I'd even question whether the victim had placed the duff bolts personally. I'd also point out an inability to remove them, due to their somewhat inaccessible location.

 jon 16 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

> My understanding is the FFME is the equivalent of the BMC. 

Not as such. I don't think the BMC draws up conventions with landowners to absolve them of liability in the case of accidents. Equally, I suppose, the BMC doesn't back out of those (thousands) of conventions as a knee jerk reaction to being found liable for 1.6M€... when they could have just upped their responsabilité civile insurance part of the members' subs by 7€ per member instead. It would seem to be the brexit of the climbing world.

 Mick Ward 16 Jan 2023
In reply to jcw:

> The law also often relies on precedent. What relevant judgements if any directly related to the issue are there in France, Uk or indeed Kalymnos?

I don't know, John. I looked at everything I could, 30 years ago. If I remember correctly, in the US people had successfully sued their rescuers - something which we would regard as deplorable.

Should every member of a UK MRT have to operate with this kind of threat hanging over them? Surely not. They give enough (and more) as it is. 

Mick 

 Mick Ward 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Dave Garnett:

But, re landowners, why even bother? Why not either simply ban climbing or commercialise it and control it? 

Re fixed gear, again, why not make a load of stuff mandatory rather than relying on personal judgement? 

Mick 

 jcw 16 Jan 2023
In reply to lukevf:

So what?

2
OP Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 16 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> The accident that cost the FFME 1.6M€ and which is at the root of this shitstorm had nothing to do with bolt failure. It was a bloc pulled off by a climber which hit the belayer. This makes it all the more worrying as potentially it could affect other outdoor activities - mountain bikers, walkers etc...

Thanks for correcting that, I obviously got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the way - a bolt failure in the Gorges du Tarn was the story I heard.

Chris

 springfall2008 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Isn't this the status quo in England, rarely is permission granted to climb but the land-owner ignores climbers. If they are injured it's their fault as they were trespassing. 

 timjones 16 Jan 2023
In reply to fred99:

> An owner could reasonably be expected to know they have trees - which take some time to grow - but surely they have a much better argument when it comes to denying even knowing that bolts exist - unless they are expected to regularly (daily ?) inspect every cliff on their property through binoculars. At least that's the argument I'd ask my lawyers to present against any "claims" from a schiester ambulance chaser. In fact I'd even question whether the victim had placed the duff bolts personally. I'd also point out an inability to remove them, due to their somewhat inaccessible location.

It is one thing to now that you have trees, it is another thing entirely to have guard against the possibility that a branch may fall on some numpty that doesn't appreciate that walking under trees comes with a risk and wants to find someone to blame if a tree does what trees naturally do.

It is of course possible to argue against any claim but should it really be necessary, it would all be much simpler if we got rid of schiester lawyers

2
In reply to Chris Craggs:

This has been bubbling away for a while now, I believe there is a second accident in the gorge du Tarn that ended up in a big pay out as well. 

The FFME's insurance company wanted to up the costs since the pay outs. But the FFME said no. They did lobby to get owners liability mitigated by getting the understanding that the  participant accepts "normal and reasonably foreseeable risk" but it looks like some owners don't want to gamble with it.

Locally to us a lot of the crags are managed by the local mayor, and some are just not interested in the risk. I do understand its hard for then to justify the risk to locals that maybe don't climb. My local mayor has turned me down for equipping a potential new local crag because of this.

France has two level for climbing sites the sports sites which are managed and adventure which are normally alpine and multi pitch type venues. So land owners have start to try and reclassify the sports as adventure terrain, hence the signs. But at a local bolting meeting they seam to think this wouldn't really stand up.

here is another article about it called the Brexit of the cliffs . https://alpinemag.fr/le-brexit-des-falaises-presles-escalade-interdite/?fbc...

 Michael Hood 16 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

> My understanding is the FFME is the equivalent of the BMC. You wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you went after the BMC after being hit by falling rock....would you?

What about at one of the sites that the BMC owns?

As a knowledgeable land owner, there might be a higher duty of care.

1
 nikoid 16 Jan 2023
In reply to Michael Hood:

> What about at one of the sites that the BMC owns?

> As a knowledgeable land owner, there might be a higher duty of care.

I think you're probably right, Horseshoe Quarry springs to mind, it would be interesting to hear from the BMC on how/if the duty of care issue is managed.

 French Erick 17 Jan 2023
In reply to ecrinscollective:

Thanks for the article. Come to think of it, I have seen those signs “terrain d’aventure” for years in my valley. Did they anticipate that FFME fall-out? Still to meet the climbers, too busy skiing (we have a full cover of snow)!

 remus Global Crag Moderator 17 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

> I think you're probably right, Horseshoe Quarry springs to mind, it would be interesting to hear from the BMC on how/if the duty of care issue is managed.

I'd be surprised if they'll comment publically in any detail. If they were litigated against then it would be very handy for the prosecuting lawyer to have a detailed breakdown of where the BMC thinks their legal liability lies!

However, I think it's safe to assume that the BMC do have a duty of care at venues they own. I imagine rebolting Horseshoe was fairly expensive and wasn't just done for the fun of it!

 LeeWood 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

The dreaded safety-ism bites deeper - they would have us all constrained to our armchairs

But this initiative has been ongoing for some time. In the SW / Pyrenees where I climb I'm unaware of any imminent closures. But I do note fewer outdoor climbers active - have had a whole sector (or even whole crag !) to myself (ourselves) frequently. There seems to be a drift to indoor walls.

I presume there is a topo available for Presles ? Without a topo informing the would-be climber 'this is a ready-equipped place to climb' - the balance of law and logistics must be different :/ A few crags I visit are 'open' secrets - no (official) topos available !

 jon 17 Jan 2023
In reply to French Erick:

> Thanks for the article. Come to think of it, I have seen those signs “terrain d’aventure” for years in my valley. Did they anticipate that FFME fall-out? Still to meet the climbers, too busy skiing (we have a full cover of snow)!

Which would explain why we had Méolans to ourselves last saturday !

As for the TA signs, they sometimes appear when the equipment isn't up to required norms. Near where I live for instance, there's a crag of very soft molasse limestone equipped with expansion bolts, whereas it should be equipped with glue-ins.

 lukevf 17 Jan 2023
In reply to jcw:

Civil law is less dependent on precedent compared to the UK common law system.

1
 fred99 17 Jan 2023
In reply to timjones:

> It is of course possible to argue against any claim but should it really be necessary, it would all be much simpler if we got rid of schiester lawyers

I couldn't agree more !

 Rob Parsons 17 Jan 2023
In reply to timjones:

> It is of course possible to argue against any claim but should it really be necessary, it would all be much simpler if we got rid of schiester lawyers

I guess you mean 'shyster.' But what exactly do you mean by 'shyster lawyers'?

Lawyers present an argument regarding the detail of the law, which will finally be assessed by either a judge or a jury. Where does shysterism come into things? What's an example case you have in mind?

6
Removed User 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Something involving WAGs maybe?!

1
 timjones 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I guess you mean 'shyster.' But what exactly do you mean by 'shyster lawyers'?

I've never seen it written and naively hoped that the poster who introduced the word into the debate might know how to spell it.

> Lawyers present an argument regarding the detail of the law, which will finally be assessed by either a judge or a jury. Where does shysterism come into things? What's an example case you have in mind?

Sadly they sometimes are not afraid to present a false claim in the form of a theatening letter in the hope that the recipient will crumble in the face of "professional qualifications".

 Rob Parsons 17 Jan 2023
In reply to timjones:

> I've never seen it written and naively hoped that the poster who introduced the word into the debate might know how to spell it.

Ah yes, sorry - I see that you were replying to someone else's use of the term.

> Sadly they sometimes are not afraid to present a false claim in the form of a theatening letter in the hope that the recipient will crumble in the face of "professional qualifications".

Literally 'false' claims? Really? What would be an example of that? And what's the relevance of that claim in the context of this thread?

2
 Rob Parsons 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Removed User:

> Something involving WAGs maybe?!

There's a good analysis of that case at https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/society-and-culture/what-rebekah-vardy-g...

I don't think you can blame the lawyers involved.

2
 nikoid 17 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> Not as such. I don't think the BMC draws up conventions with landowners to absolve them of liability in the case of accidents. Equally, I suppose, the BMC doesn't back out of those (thousands) of conventions as a knee jerk reaction to being found liable for 1.6M€... when they could have just upped their responsabilité civile insurance part of the members' subs by 7€ per member instead. It would seem to be the brexit of the climbing world.

Thanks. It's all very odd though, why does a "body" (the FFME) feel the need to indemnify land owners (the UK doesn't do this) and why does the taking responsibility for yourself approach not hold in France of all places? 

 jon 17 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

> It's all very odd though, why does a "body" (the FFME) feel the need to indemnify land owners (the UK doesn't do this)

This is how it works !! There are probably loads of brilliant crags that would never have seen the light of day without it. 

> and why does the taking responsibility for yourself approach not hold in France of all places?

An excellent question ! This of course would be one of the better solutions to the problem. But just to go back to that accident - the guy who pulled the block off was badly injured and spent sometime in a wheelchair and I think didn't work afterwards for a long time. His partner sustained brain damage and also had to have her arm amputated as it was too badly damaged to repair it. I guess there's a limit to taking responsibility for yourself! Compulsory insurance perhaps might be the solution...?

4
 fred99 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I guess you mean 'shyster.' But what exactly do you mean by 'shyster lawyers'?

> Lawyers present an argument regarding the detail of the law, which will finally be assessed by either a judge or a jury. Where does shysterism come into things? What's an example case you have in mind?

Maybe all those specious "arguments" put forward by Trump's lawyers on just about any subject under the sun.

(I know it's nothing to do with cliff access, but I'd suggest it's something which everyone should be able to comprehend)

4
 fred99 17 Jan 2023
In reply to fred99:

Actually there was a case at an indoor Wall (Leeds ?) a few years ago where a climber tripped over a rucsac/bag when stepping back and hurt himself. The fact that it was his own property that he had placed there just makes his insurance claim more than a little "tacky" in my book.

 nikoid 17 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> Compulsory insurance perhaps might be the solution...?

 Yes I'm sure some form of insurance is part of the solution but difficult to police compulsory insurance. (Although that's not a strong argument for not doing it of course).

 timjones 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Ah yes, sorry - I see that you were replying to someone else's use of the term.

> Literally 'false' claims? Really? What would be an example of that? And what's the relevance of that claim in the context of this thread?

Yes literally false claims that he must have known were untrue and the snivelling little weasel used the excuse that he was only doing what he was told to do.

It is relevant to this thread because you asked for an example and it demonstrates that some members of the legal profession are not as scrupulous as we ought to be able to expect.

2
 Rob Parsons 17 Jan 2023
In reply to timjones:

> Yes literally false claims that he must have known were untrue and the snivelling little weasel used the excuse that he was only doing what he was told to do.

I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to there. What was the case?

1
 timjones 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Just a neighbour who thought he could use a professional friend to bully me into doing all of the work and footing the whole bill for fencing that was at best a shared responsibility.

Fortunately I had the confidence and knowledge to stand my ground without the costs of any legal assistance.

Sadly someone with less knowledge and confidence could easily have buckled under some empty threats on some fancy headed paper.

1
 French Erick 17 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> Which would explain why we had Méolans to ourselves last saturday .

Indeed! I am sure the temps would have been favorable too. It was so incredibly mild in south facing places. I haven’t climbed in Méolans for a while. Wasn’t it a bit polished and shiny?

 jon 17 Jan 2023
In reply to French Erick:

> I haven’t climbed in Méolans for a while. Wasn’t it a bit polished and shiny?

Only the old bits.

 jcw 17 Jan 2023
In reply to lukevf:

OK, I see your point

1
 Sean_J 17 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

> My understanding is the FFME is the equivalent of the BMC. You wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you went after the BMC after being hit by falling rock....would you?

Depends on whether the rock hits you on the leg I suppose

 nikoid 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Sean_J:

When I wrote that I thought someone will have a little joke🤣

 wbo2 17 Jan 2023
In reply to Nikoid: - what about if a bolt failed? Where is the degree of legal expectation of good quality bolts from a crag owned and run by the BMC? Quite high I'd imagine

3
 nikoid 17 Jan 2023
In reply to wbo2:

> - what about if a bolt failed? Where is the degree of legal expectation of good quality bolts from a crag owned and run by the BMC? Quite high I'd imagine

No idea, maybe the BMC Participation Statement gets them off the hook? It's a legal minefield, because as Jon alluded to up thread the concept of taking personal responsibility is likely to break down in the case of life changing accidents. 

1
 Mick Ward 18 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

But surely it needn't break down if you have negligence as a countervailing principle? 

Mick 

 Duncan Bourne 18 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> An excellent question ! This of course would be one of the better solutions to the problem. But just to go back to that accident - the guy who pulled the block off was badly injured and spent sometime in a wheelchair and I think didn't work afterwards for a long time. His partner sustained brain damage and also had to have her arm amputated as it was too badly damaged to repair it. I guess there's a limit to taking responsibility for yourself! Compulsory insurance perhaps might be the solution...?

It is an interesting question and it falls across a wide ranging field.

If I get drunk leap off a railway bridge into an oncoming train who is responsible?

If I go swimming in a lake get cramp and drown, who is responsible?

If I go to the local park and climb a tree and a branch breaks and I fall out who is responsible?

If my child eats a poisonous mushroon they picked up in the woods, who is responsible?

I could go on. I feel that there should be a point where personal responsibliity and act of God is assumed even in the event of life changing injury.

 Enty 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

When I go through the gate or over the stile into a sector all decisions from then on should be down to me. 99% of the time I trust the locals who have equipped the routes and maintained the footpaths etc. Occasionally you come across shite bolts and loose rock on new routes which should have been cleaned. It's down to me to decide whether I proceed or not.

Do I clip that bolt?

Is that belay installed safely?

Should I pull on that giant flake?

There are routes near me which get climbed which I won't go near because of one or more of the above reasons.

The idea that me pulling something off and injuring my belayer could be someone else's fault is nuts.

E

 Dave Garnett 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> If I go to the local park and climb a tree and a branch breaks and I fall out who is responsible?

But if you go to the local park and sit on the swing, which breaks injuring your back, who is responsible?

 wbo2 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Dave Garnett: Or you go to a park, with an area marked 'play area', and the offending swing breaks, what is the distribution of responsibility, and expectation that play equipment in the play are safe?

 Duncan Bourne 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Ah now then it is the local council. Reason being the swing is installed for the express use of the public and should be in a safe condition under normal use. So if you sit on the swing and it breaks then council. If you cut through the chain and fall as it snaps then the council sue you for criminal damage.

 Duncan Bourne 18 Jan 2023
In reply to wbo2:

As I said to Dave. In those instances whomever installed the equipment/is responsible for the equipment is libel. In the case of old equipment then it is the authority, in the case of new equipment it is the authority, who may also sue the people who installed it if the problem is faulty equipment. Similarly for tripping over paving slabs or getting cut on glass on a playground. It is the authorities responsibility. In the case of slipping over tripping it hinges on whether reasonable steps had been taken to prevent injury and was it obvious to an average person that injury was likely? So man made surfaces might reasonably be expected to be in safe condition, while natural hazards like wet grass might reasonably be expected to be slippy, potential hidden dangers, like a quarry edge, should be warned about and fenced off to prevent people falling.

 leland stamper 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Aren't you back where we started? If a bolt comes out and you hit the deck, ending up in a wheel chair you sue either the bolter(mostly experienced climbers volunteering to put something back into the climbing community) or the local landowner who has agreed to let people climb on his or her land after being promised that climbers will have insurance by local climbing clubs, etc. 

I have to say it's enough to put you off ever bolting anything

 redjerry 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Related to this subject, in my Mojave Limestone and RR guidebooks quite a few route developers requested not to have their names associated with routes that they had set up, for the specific reason of avoiding liability.

Having said that, personally, I find the notion that the bolter of a route is liable for whatever happens on that route in the future to be improbably far-fetched.

 Duncan Bourne 18 Jan 2023
In reply to leland stamper:

It is a bit of a minefield.

However I wonder if the landowner could get away with saying he hadn't known or approved of bolts on his land? ie if some kids made a swing down by a stream on your land and you were unaware of it would you be liable if the swing broke?

 leland stamper 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

The kids haven't asked permission. I would suggest that most bolters would ask the landowners permission.If you are bolting and haven't asked permission and your bolts fall out causing an accident to a climber without insurance then you could find yourself being asked questions in court.

Given most landowners in S England are taking down ash trees anywhere near a road or footpath to at least show that they are taking their duty of care seriously I can see a time when they may say no to bolting unless the bolters are displaying their insurance cover. I'm feeling the need to consult a solicitor myself!

 nikoid 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

> But surely it needn't break down if you have negligence as a countervailing principle? 

> Mick 

I may have misunderstood you but if you are pursuing a claim for negligence hasn't taking personal responsibility broken down by definition?

.

 French Erick 18 Jan 2023
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Am I the only parent that checks the state of playground apparatus for suitability? 
Who can still think, in this day and age of severe budgétât cuts and abysmal council debts, that council workers have the time and resources to reliably check all parks????

Much safer do a routine wee check, same as the bolts you clip imho

 Howard J 19 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Despite the title of this thread, much of the discussion has (perhaps inevitably) been about liability in the UK.  Here the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 imposes on the occupier of land a duty of care to anyone on that land, with or without permission (ie it includes trespassers).  However that does not make them automatically liable for anything that happens. The court case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council made it clear that an occupier of land shall be under no obligation to prohibit people from assuming risks that are inherent in the activities they voluntarily choose to undertake on the land. As a result, an occupier bears no obligation for risks willingly accepted by the visitor or trespasser.

https://finlawportal.com/tomlinson-v-congleton-borough-council-2003-a-case-...

The legal position in France appears to be quite different, and there it does seem more likely that a landowner will be held responsible for anything occurring on their land.

 daWalt 19 Jan 2023
In reply to Howard J:

Very good point.

This is alluded to upthread. The French legal system being civil law rather than case law. I can't give you a rundown of the differences, but i know that French  judges have much more freedome to interpret the intent of the law rather than go through a litany of X vs Y case history.

I guess the downside is you never know what some judge might think.

 Dave Garnett 19 Jan 2023
In reply to French Erick:

> Much safer do a routine wee check, same as the bolts you clip imho

How do you do that exactly, if you've just turned up for a holiday at Presles or Kalymnos?  And, unless you've brought a rack with you, how do you deal with it if you do find crap bolts on a route you are already committed to?

That said, ironically, my impression of Presles in particular was that it was extremely well maintained.  The classic les Buis, which must get done more than anything else, had been almost comically over-bolted since I originally did it.  Massive shiny bolts every two metres the whole way up.  Must be the safest route I've ever done.

 sheppy 19 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

Thanks for clarification, that puts a whole different spin on it for sure. Now surely all forms of climbing could be involved.....

 sheppy 19 Jan 2023
In reply to redjerry:

I was under the impression that liability claims in the States were strictly limited as the participant was acknowledged to be at fault in most cases?

At one time (when it was brought in) the figure of $30000 seems to stick in my mind. Think it was enacted in the wake of the Chouinard suing event but my memory might be playing up!

 Webster 19 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> I think the French idea that if there is an accident then there is 'blame', appears to be behind this,

Is that the case? it has awlays seemed to me that the attitude in france is: if you hurt yourself/die it is your own stupid fault! health and safety is virtually non-existent over here!

2
 jon 21 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Anyone interested in helping prevent/overturn the climbing bans, could sign petitions - like this one for the crag of  Aureille , one of the six major crags in the Alpilles massif:

 https://www.change.org/p/non-%C3%A0-l-interdiction-de-l-escalade-%C3%A0-aur...

2,600 signatures so far. They need 5000 by the 24th...

Post edited at 10:47
 Mick Ward 21 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

> I may have misunderstood you but if you are pursuing a claim for negligence hasn't taking personal responsibility broken down by definition?

Let's imagine Fred and Joe went climbing. Fred got killed. Joe survived. Joe is up before the beak. 

Fred had personal responsibility for being there (a la 'Volenti non fit injuria'). Joe had a 'duty of care' to Joe (Caveat: I have no legal expertise.)  Had Joe failed Fred? Had he been negligent??

You could have exactly the same technical scenario (e.g. a belay ripping and Fred abbing to this death) with two completely different legal outcomes (Joe was guilty/not guilty) according to the situation, i.e. the contexts were massively different. 

My thesis is that these two principles, personal responsibility (from me, for example) and negligence (from my mate, for example) are enough to try any case - when viewed in the context of the accident (this latter being crucial). But, as ever, I might be wrong!

Anyway, hope this helps.

Mick

 Mick Ward 21 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

Signed!

Mick 

 Mick Ward 21 Jan 2023
In reply to French Erick:

> Am I the only parent that checks the state of playground apparatus for suitability? 

> Much safer do a routine wee check, same as the bolts you clip imho

You are a trad climber and I claim my greasy fiver. (Yup, just nebbed your profile. Quelle surprise!) 

It's ingrained in us, mate. I wander around with my head in the clouds, musing about great literature. But the faintest sign of danger and that red light is winking away into overdrive. 

Roll up to the crag and the alert button's been pressed automatically. 

Do other people think like this? Nope! Bolts are bolts, they're all OK, aren't they? Well yes... until one rips.

Mick 

 Rob Parsons 21 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Do other people think like this? Nope! Bolts are bolts, they're all OK, aren't they? Well yes... until one rips.

How do you make an accurate assessment of any particular bolt?

 LeeWood 22 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

failure of a single bolt is rarely critical - the 1st 2 perhaps; after that you can count them as for 'tradittude' - the value may simply be of psychological value until the next one is clipped - safety in numbers

the risk of rock-break is averagely more significant

3
 nikoid 22 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> How do you make an accurate assessment of any particular bolt?

By subjecting it to a proper pull test with calibrated equipment. 

 nikoid 22 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Let's imagine Fred and Joe went climbing. Fred got killed. Joe survived. Joe is up before the beak. 

Presumably in this scenario Fred's family are seeking damages from Joe. 

> Fred had personal responsibility for being there (a la 'Volenti non fit injuria'). Joe had a 'duty of care' to Joe (Caveat: I have no legal expertise.)  Had Joe failed Fred? Had he been negligent??

That would be up to the lawyers and expert witnesses to decide. (Stating the obvious). It would also depend on the nature of  the relationship between the two climbers, ie guide/paying client or recreational climbers. Mistakes made by recreational climbers are more likely to be classified as "honest" mistakes rather than negligence I would suggest. As far as I'm aware recreational climbers do not tend to end up in court.

> You could have exactly the same technical scenario (e.g. a belay ripping and Fred abbing to this death) with two completely different legal outcomes (Joe was guilty/not guilty) according to the situation, i.e. the contexts were massively different. 

> My thesis is that these two principles, personal responsibility (from me, for example) and negligence (from my mate, for example) are enough to try any case - when viewed in the context of the accident (this latter being crucial). But, as ever, I might be wrong!

The crux of all this for me is what does taking personal responsibility actually mean. Does it preclude seeking redress in the event of an accident, after all we know climbing is hazardous and honest mistakes happen? Easy to think it does...until you find yourself in a wheelchair for the rest of your life. 

Anyway you may be finding this tedious by now, if so treat my questions as rhetorical!

Post edited at 12:01
 Rob Parsons 22 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

> By subjecting it to a proper pull test with calibrated equipment. 

We'll, yes. But nobody does that when they're climbing a route.

I was reacting to (what I think was) the suggestion that we can truly visually assess the safety of any particular bolt. I don't think that's the case.

 nikoid 22 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> We'll, yes. But nobody does that when they're climbing a route.

I know, I was being slightly tiresome by answering your question at face value. 

> I was reacting to (what I think was) the suggestion that we can truly visually assess the safety of any particular bolt. I don't think that's the case.

I agree. As climbers we have to accept the risk that bolts could fail.

OP Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 22 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I was reacting to (what I think was) the suggestion that we can truly visually assess the safety of any particular bolt. I don't think that's the case.

You can't tell if a bolt will fail, but there are clues that should flag up a warning - corrosion, cracked rock, loose, sticking out too far etc

Chris

 john arran 22 Jan 2023
In reply to andy w bloc:

> Sabart, Ariege is shut too now it seems.

It isn't clear at all that this applies to the climbing, as it seems to be referring to the interior of the cave and doesn't appear to be a climbing-related issue. Would be good to have a more definitive opinion though.

 LeeWood 23 Jan 2023
In reply to john arran:

It's not hard to imagine how bolt failure would be more likely when forces align with the bolt axis (ie. cave ceiling) - as opposed to normal orientation ie. perpendicular to axis

 john arran 23 Jan 2023
In reply to LeeWood:

I agree, but the notice of closure doesn't suggest it's anything to do with bolt failure, nor indeed climbing at all!

 Jules Lane 24 Jan 2023
In reply to john arran:

can anyone advise which if any of the crags around Buis Les Baronnais are currently / imminently banned, and anywhere to find out?

thanks

 jon 25 Jan 2023
In reply to Jules Lane:

Nothing closed at the moment. These closures seem to come out of the blue, so no real way of knowing in advance.

 Mick Ward 25 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> How do you make an accurate assessment of any particular bolt?

Profuse apologies for the delay in getting back to you. (Life got in the way.)

I doubt I could make an accurate assessment of anything. It's not about being 'accurate' (to what degree??), it's about not being complacent. Chris gave some good tips of things to be looking out for. Will people take heed? Doubt it. For most, outdoor sport is a free climbing wall. Understandable - but potentially deadly.

I can very quickly make an assessment of the bolting on a route/crag. If I'm unimpressed, the alert button goes up several notches. If it's something simple, like normal bolts on a sea cliff, I'll probably pass. Sometimes you can't. For instance the three bolts on the 'hanging belay of death' on El Dorado, all looked rusty. They also looked as though they might have been placed at the same time. So might they rip at the same time?

Hypothetical? A couple of years ago, a mate took a bad fall when two bolts ripped on a sea cliff. Don't know the gory details and don't want to get into it. But I don't think the bolts were marine grade stainless steel. 

If I'm worried about a particular bolt, for whatever reason, I'll tell the belayer and we'll have a damage limitation plan - as best we can. 

Mick 

 Mick Ward 25 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

Also apologies for delay. Will make two scenarios, maybe a little simplistic. But will hopefully illustrate the principles. 

Scenario 1. 

Joe is a climbing instructor. Fred is his client. Fred has never climbed before. They go to Idwal on a good day. Joe sets up a belay. Fred abs off it. Belay rips. Fred dies. Joe ends up in court. 

Re 'Volenti non fit injuria', on a subjective score of 0 (low) to 10 (high), how much risk was Fred embracing? Let's say about 1 or 2, i.e. not much. 

The score for Joe for negligence would seem to be about 10. (There were abundant belay opportunities; Fred went off a single cam.) 

Had Joe 'failed' Fred? Surely he had. 

(And if you think this is a crazy example, I've got a tale of my second day's 'proper' climbing. Shudder!)

Scenario 2. 

Joe and Fred are hardcore Alpinists. They retreat off a route in Alaska in terrible weather. They have very little gear left. They haven't eaten or slept for ages. They're at the end of their tethers. Joe sets up a belay. Fred abs off it. Belay rips. Fred dies. Joe ends up in court. 

Re 'Volenti non fit injuria', on a subjective score of 0 (low) to 10 (high), how much risk was Fred embracing? Surely somewhere around 10. He knew the score. 

The score for Joe for negligence? Let's say the anchor was also a single cam. They had nothing else. I'd say the score was close to zero. They had nothing else. No hope of rescue. Ab - or freeze to death, very quickly indeed. 

Had Joe 'failed' Fred? Surely not (in my view). Fred's death, while terrible, is what can happen in these circumstances, no matter how skilful or careful you try to be.

Mick

 Lankyman 25 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

But how did Joe get down (to then get hauled before the beak)? If, as you imply, they only had one cam left and this ripped sending poor Fred to a premature end, what did he do to survive? I don't think you're giving us all the facts, Mick.

1
 Mick Ward 25 Jan 2023
In reply to Lankyman:

It's in my forthcoming bestseller.

< Spoiler alert > Soloed down. Been done before, I think. Last remaining option. 

Mick  (The older you get, the more you want to stay in the cafe.) 

1
 jon 25 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

... sue the cam manufacturer ? 

 Andy Cairns 25 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

We've just had word that a planned Spring trip to La Clape, near Narbonne, has been cancelled, as the local Mairie has confirmed that climbing at all the La Clape sectors has been banned from 20 January until at least the summer.  They have said this is due to a central government initiative requiring all municipalities with climbing venues to undertake safety audits to confirm the equipment is up to standard.  No further info at this stage, but presumably if there is indeed a national instruction, it should start to affect lots of other venues quite quickly!

I guess the implications of any safety audit would vary widely through the various municipalities?  For example, in Orpierre the local Mairie is heavily involved with the climbing, and there is a local guide on hand, who I think has done much of the equipping and would be involved in any audit, but many other places are less heavily involved and the state of the fixed equipment is widely variable.

If this is indeed due to the FFME withdrawing cover, it sounds like they might have shot themselves in the foot - they could end up being a national climbing federation in a country with no climbing, although I suspect some sort of pragmatic solution will have to emerge!

Cheers, Andy

 Andrew Lodge 25 Jan 2023
In reply to Andy Cairns:

That's disappointing, a couple of sectors were closed in October due to an apparent risk of explosions but most of it was open. It'll be interesting to see if it spreads to the other crags in the area.

 Mick Ward 25 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

Hopefully not. It wasn't the best placement - but all there was. Mind you, we've only got Joe's word for that. ('He who survives is in the right.' Nietzsche) 

Mick 

P.S. It's interesting to compare videos of top climbers onsighting, placing cams quickly and carefully with, err... other videos where they're placed quickly and carelessly, as though they're 'get out of jail' removable bolts. 

1
 nikoid 25 Jan 2023
In reply to Mick Ward:

Scenario 1 - I think we're on the same page. Joe was grossly negligent.

Scenario 2 - yes, both climbers knew the risks, they found themselves in a corner so it would be wrong to attribute blame to either. Therefore any inquest would in all probability return a verdict of death by misadventure, or accidental death. How does Joe find himself in court? 

1
 Mick Ward 25 Jan 2023
In reply to nikoid:

Grieving parents? 

Iirc some years ago, grieving parents tried to bring a legal case to stop all climbing in Yosemite because their (adult) child was killed. Chouinard (the company) went out of business because of a claim against it when equipment was misused (I think). People sue their rescuers. Lots of things end up in court. 

The reason I produced the two scenarios was to show how only two principles were enough to judge the same technical incident under two totally different sets of circumstances and arrive at two completely different judgements. 

When I did the original research, some 25 years ago, it was a legal morass. It still is. My suggestion was that using these two countervailing principles was a way to cut through at least some of the morass. 

Mick 

 Rob Exile Ward 26 Jan 2023
In reply to leland stamper:

'I have to say it's enough to put you off ever bolting anything...'

Not all bad then

6
 jon 26 Jan 2023
In reply to Andy Cairns:

> If this is indeed due to the FFME withdrawing cover, it sounds like they might have shot themselves in the foot - they could end up being a national climbing federation in a country with no climbing.....

What it will leave them with is indoor walls and competions, which is (according to some) what they prefer ! Not talking about at departmental level, but at national...

 LeeWood 26 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

I have heard from a v reliable source in the FFME - the available funding supports this objective. So this should not then be a surprise !

OP Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 26 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> What it will leave them with is indoor walls and competions, which is (according to some) what they prefer ! Not talking about at departmental level, but at national...

I have no clue who the 'FFME' are - not 'climbers' presumably? Rebuffat, Terray, Herzog, Charlet, Allain, Lachenal - how did it ever get to this point?

Chris

2
 jimtitt 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

In their previous incarnation (FFM) they organised the 1950 first ascent expedition to Annapurna with such luminaries as Herzog, Lachenal, Terray, Rebuffat, Ichac, Couzy etc so perhaps you are a bit off target.

1
 jon 27 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

I think that like many of these sort of institutions, the people who are willing, or indeed want to put themselves forward to be (national) president, VP, etc etc, are not *necessarily* the best people for the job. Maybe that's the case here ? Maybe they've got their own agenda ? That said, the local departmental teams (you'll see written as CT84 - comité territorial Vaucluse, for example) are the real deal, committed climbers, equippers, negotiators etc. There are some (many?) climbers who that feel that they have been betrayed by Paris - in the Presles situation, for example:  

https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/auvergne-rhone-alpes/isere/isere-l-...

Worth watching the video in this article to see the fabulous zoom-out from the huge Paroi Rouge.

 pneame 27 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

Fabulous video (and place) but a grim situation - a breakdown in communication that, on the face of it, looks challenging to sort out.

How does it work in places like Cham or Zermatt, arguably considerably more dangerous and yet apparently working OK? 

 LeeWood 27 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> I think that like many of these sort of institutions, the people who are willing, or indeed want to put themselves forward to be (national) president, VP, etc etc, are not *necessarily* the best people for the job.

It happened in the local club here - a non-climber got elected as president ! Conflicts of interest became apparent under lockdown rules, when the real climbers just wanted to get on with climbing while he wanted tight implementation of bio-security palava-nonsense

 jcw 27 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

Ok, pity about Presle but there are masses of other big serious climbing in the Vercors, Mont Aiguille, Pelle, Archiane just to name three. Do they come under the same regime or are they terrain d'aventure?

 Enty 27 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

> Worth watching the video in this article to see the fabulous zoom-out from the huge Paroi Rouge.

Amazing. Thanks for that. Not only is climbing the Paroi Rouge one of my greatest days out. I climbed it with Bernard Gravier. 

E

 jon 27 Jan 2023
In reply to jcw:

I don't know, John. I suppose it depends whether they were covered by a convention in the first place. The are certainly terrain d'aventure though, that's for sure ! Crags that weren't covered shouldn't be any different now - other than for the fact that the potential problem has now been drawn to the proprietor's attention, whether that be a private individual or a commune, or indeed the ONF.

Post edited at 22:40
 nikoid 28 Jan 2023
In reply to jon:

And what about via ferrata? The Grimper article seems to suggest they won't be restricted. (Presumably because they get regularly inspected).

In reply to jon:

The ban on Presles covers sectors that weren't ever conventionnés by the FFME. 

https://www.montagnes-magazine.com/actus-deconventionnement-comprendre-seri...

 climber_Ken 29 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

If anyone is still interested in this very long thread. The following may restore some level headedness to the situation. It can be read via Google translate if your French is not up to it.

https://ffmect38.fr/le-deconventionnement-des-sites-descalade/

In reply to nikoid:

And what about via ferrata? The Grimper article seems to suggest they won't be restricted. (Presumably because they get regularly inspected).

Via Ferrata are slightly different, Often they are put up in partnership with the local authorities to promote tourism. and as you say most are inspected each year as part of this agreement. So I can't see them being effected by. this.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Locally around Briançon area, they have set up a bolting association. Its goal is to take over responsibility of the crags and maintaining them etc. 

It's been running a while now, it seamed to struggle a bit at the start as there were a lot of people involved and a lot of opinions on how thing should be done and who does them. I am sure politics will effect every group like this. But does seam to be settling down and hopefully it will mean the crags don't have to close and they in fact opening new sectors as well.

They rely on membership to cover the cost of their insurance etc, its 10€ a year -https://www.helloasso.com/associations/roc-nbolt-05?fbclid=IwAR0j95LJT-762f...

Could be the way forward for other areas. 

 Wiley Coyote2 29 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

The bad  news for climbers here is that all this talk of best defences is hypothetical to landowners.  Even if you win a case simply fighting it will eat up your life and your money while giving you years of worry and stress, so why risk it at all?  Your easiest, cheapest and wisest defence is not to get involved in litigation in the first place. And the best way to do that is simply to ban climbing.

In most cases landownersw receive no benefit from allowing climbing and if there's no upside to allowing it the smart money would just ban it. That's what I would do in their shoes.

1
 Godwin 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

124 posts for someone to recognise the perspective of the Landowner.

I always wonder what the response from the BMC would be to an archery club or a 4x 4club wanting access to Horseshoe or Wilton for some fun.

 Rob Parsons 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> The bad  news for climbers here is that all this talk of best defences is hypothetical to landowners.

Who is the landowner of the cliffs in question? Private people? Or the state?

 Fakey Rocks 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Chris Craggs:

If I'd like to do a couple of mini tours of côté d'azur / languedoc- Roussillon crags, etc, will i still be able to climb at most places ? 

So what will happen if you try to climb at places that have the banned signs up?

The signs are can act as a means for landowners to be protected from lawsuits, but you can still choose to climb there ?

Ok the landowner might turn up and tell you to stop. Is it trespass? What are the consequences ?  Can you be arrested / have your gear confiscated by the police, worse?

Hard to police isn't it? do you just avoid roadside crags? Will any big climbing spots with campsites start having their campsites closed to climbers, so that you have to become devious,  and pretend you are just going to read a book at the bottom of a crag.

Will the old style clip stick regain popularity as it looks more like a walking stick?

France is my première winter destination as accessible quite easily without flying... should i just trundle on through to spain again?

Post edited at 10:34
2
 Godwin 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Who is the landowner of the cliffs in question? Private people? Or the state?

A private person would be wary of putting their private financial security at risk, from potential litigation.

I doubt a state body could be easily convinced of the utility of allowing an activity that would bring with it the risk of litigation, costing the tax payer.

2
 joem 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Godwin:

Of course the state could change the law. 
i find it hard to feel too much sympathy with priviate land owners but in this context the law is daft.

 Fraser 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Fakey Rocks:

> So what will happen if you try to climb at places that have the banned signs up?

I'd strongly suggest you try and climb at places where there aren't any signs up, rather than potentially risk exacerbating what is already a bad situation. It's not as if France is short of climbing venues.

 Fakey Rocks 30 Jan 2023
In reply to Fraser:

 Wondering how many crags currently have signs up and if a list can be compiled? Obviously the list may grow. 

2
 Alan Bates 14 Feb 2023
OP Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 14 Feb 2023
In reply to Alan Bates:

Yes, that is similar to the signs in the Maurienne. From a UK perspective it seems the obvious way forward,

Chris

 Moacs 14 Feb 2023
In reply to Fakey Rocks:

This attitude is why we end up not being allowed nice things

 nikoid 14 Feb 2023
1
 pec 14 Feb 2023
In reply to nikoid:

> As long as you know how to use your wedgers and straps properly you'll be fine. 

I love the way the French never ask an English person to read their translations to see if it makes sense, it's so very . . . French.

Even in Ski resorts where it would take them approximately 3 seconds to find a native English speaker you get some fantastic signs telling you things like "please to not put your skis in the toilet".

1
 French Erick 15 Feb 2023
In reply to pec:

It provides 2 things:

1) entertainment 

2) a reminder that « the French » are entitled to do whatever they wish on their own land. It’s for the in-comers to make sense of things. Many tourists would do well to remember that 😉

 pec 15 Feb 2023
In reply to French Erick:

Yes, I respect that the level of English speaking in France is much better than the level of French speaking (or any other language) in Britain and I've come to admire the "this is how we do it because that's how we've always done it" attitude even if it's obviously not the best way to do it, hence my "it's very French" comment.

It also provides me with great amusement, the more nonsensical the translation the better. Fortunately I can read French well enough to make sense of the original most of the time.

It is nontheless quite puzzling why, for example, so many restaurant menus are badly translated in popular tourist areas, particularly ski resorts where around 40% of their potential clientel are English. For purely commercial reason alone, why don't they just give a free meal to a native English speaker who can correct the mistakes on the menu? If people can't make sense of it they'll often go and spend their money elsewhere.

2
 Doug 15 Feb 2023
In reply to French Erick:

but how about 'cute pork' ? (for filet mignon) -  I've seen that several times & even my wife (French, doesn't speak much English) laughs whenever we see it on a menu. But maybe its done just to amuse visitors.

 fred99 15 Feb 2023
In reply to Doug:

Is "cute pork" something certain former members of the Bullingdon Club might indulge in ?

 jon 15 Feb 2023
In reply to pec:

> also provides me with great amusement, the more nonsensical the translation the better...

Yes... of course the easiest for them is to run it through our old friend google. Like this review of a portable toilet for camper vans... (found while looking through the ukc thread on campervan toilets)

"Having a disturbed digestive system at each sporting deadline, I had to equip myself with this portable toilet. He did his job without flinching. Even light plastic to support the weight of my buttocks and its contents. Particularly cold this weekend, I did not have to suffer from the smell"

 Rob Exile Ward 15 Feb 2023
In reply to jon:

Thanks for posting that

 Ian Parsons 15 Feb 2023
In reply to jon:

Sounds like a job for 'le palefrenier du tabouret'!

 pec 15 Feb 2023
In reply to Doug:

> but how about 'cute pork' ? (for filet mignon)

You could follow it up with burnt cream for dessert.

The funny thing is, if you put crème brûlé into google translate it gives you creme brule but I've still seen the much less appetising burnt cream on a few menus.

 jcw 15 Feb 2023
In reply to fred99:

A pig in a poke?

 Pinch'a'salt 15 Feb 2023
In reply to Doug:

While we are on this tangent our local pizzeria here in the Vanoise used to offer pizzas with "believed ham" (jambon cru), "Let us pepper" (Poivrons) and "trumpets of death" (Trompettes de la mort - black chanterelles to you & me...).

 Pinch'a'salt 15 Feb 2023
In reply to Pinch'a'salt:

and as for the OP it is looking like a real problem at the moment... Not quite sure where this is all going to end up!

 pec 15 Feb 2023
In reply to Pinch'a'salt:

> While we are on this tangent our local pizzeria here in the Vanoise used to offer pizzas with "believed ham" (jambon cru), "Let us pepper" (Poivrons) and "trumpets of death" (Trompettes de la mort - black chanterelles to you & me...).

They're fantastic, some of the best examples I've seen. They've made my wife's day (she's an ex French teacher).

 Alex Thurgood 23 Feb 2023
In reply to Alan Bates:

In one of the articles linked to in the discussion, the FFME indicated that these blanket attempts by communes to disown liability could well be on legally unsound ground, as a court could easily requalify the liability of any given person in the chain. A parallel would almost certainly be drawn to other aspects of communal/municipal liability where the commune can not simply disown its public liability for damage-inducing events that occur within its purview. If this were to happen, then inevitably, this would lead more and more communes to simply ban climbing on any natural edifice for which they wish to avoid liability.

 Alex Thurgood 23 Feb 2023
In reply to pec:

Our local bistro being one such establishment. We offered to translate their menu for them for free into both English and German, but they declined - oh well, at least it gives our friends a bit of a laugh when we go out.

 Alex Thurgood 23 Feb 2023
In reply to nikoid:

The law in France states that landowners are liable, but the reality is that a landowner in the majority of cases (excepting perhaps a rare few, or some cases of public ownership) would be insolvent for the purposes of an award of financial damages, and the insurance that they might have for liability linked to the land probably wouldn't cover the damage award anyway. As a private landowner, if I declare myself personally insolvent due to a debt I can not cover, in many cases, that debt would probably never be recovered under an individual compensation action. In the Vingrau climbing accident case, it wasn't just the individuals that sued the FFME, but also the national social security and healthcare organisations, as they were the ones that had to fork out the expense for the initial healthcare, and aftercare (sick pay, invalidity pensions, adaptations to home, etc). The FFME being a body with financial clout and an insurer was seen as a prime target for recovering those costs.

 Alex Thurgood 23 Feb 2023
In reply to Fakey Rocks:

A permanent climbing ban is already in place for a large swathe of the natural park in the Sancy (réserve naturelle de Chastreix-Sancy, due to "ecological pressures" rather than liability issues. Skiing of course has been maintained, at it is a massive revenue generator. Essentially, all rock formations and even ice climbing (when conditions permitted) within that part of the national park became illegal from 2018. I can imagine that the liability issues will spill over to discussions about climbing on some of the larger formations in the Chaudefour valley, such as the Dent de la Rancune, and the Crête du Coq. The Roches Sanadoires and Tuillières to the north-east of the Sancy have had a climbing ban on them since 2014.

 adnix 26 Feb 2023
In reply to Alex Thurgood:

It seems some of the ban at Sancy is no more

 https://www.ffmeaura.fr/2021/05/autorisation-de-la-pratique-de-lalpinisme-r...

 jon 26 Feb 2023
In reply to adnix:

> It seems some of the ban at Sancy is no more

Or  Saffres....

 Alex Thurgood 03 Mar 2023
In reply to adnix:

That was just the decision from the Conseil d'Etat, indicating that the ban should be lifted, but it will take a ministerial decree to actually allow that to happen. A public consultation process was started in November 2021, and was not exepected to be finished before the alpine season 22/23:

https://www.ffmeaura.fr/2021/11/enquete-publique-alpinisme-dans-la-reserve-...

and the public inquest/consultation link:

https://www.puy-de-dome.gouv.fr/modification-du-decret-du-13-07-2007-portan...

The public inquirer gave a favorable opinion to the re-opening of the area to mountaineering and climbing activities, but it seems that the decree (or rather the modification of the original decree banning it in the first place) hasn't yet been made public, cf. Article 12:

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000824283/

In the meantime, the ban is still in place.

 Andy Say 03 Mar 2023
In reply to Alan Bates:

Weren't Tautavel and Vingrau 'blanket banned' because of some bolt failures along the road south of Tautavel. I seem to recall that the developer of those newer crags had written the local guide and everything became 'suspect'?

 Fakey Rocks 05 Mar 2023
In reply to Alex Thurgood:

Thanks 

 Alan Bates 06 Mar 2023
In reply to Andy Say:

Yes that was the case. But both sites are now open with notices saying you climb at your own risk.  The Maury valley is still closed.

 Alan Bates 06 Mar 2023
In reply to Alex Thurgood:

Hmmm thanks Alex, not good news. Fingers crossed that bans don't become the norm.

 Fakey Rocks 08 Mar 2023
In reply to Alan Bates:

I've had a scout around only 10 of probably 100's of climbing facebook groups in France.

People are posting for partners, lost gear, found gear, etc.

According to an article on radio France at the end of Jan, Out of 2000, or is it 800? sport crags, only 24 are restricted.

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/six-questions-sur-la-fermeture-des-f...

There seems to be plenty of activity going on where i want to go

In reply to Fakey Rocks:

Grimper magazine reports that 7 major crags in the Vercors just got banned:

https://www.grimper.com/news-deconventionnement-7-nouveaux-sites-interdits-...

They point out that half of the climbing potential presented in the 2021 Vercors guidebook is now under a ban. 

But yeah there's so much climbing in France that the closures here and there are not (yet) a concern for most people. (Unless it happens to be your favorite/local crag that got banned.) A while back I asked a French climbing buddy about the situation at Presles and he shrugged it off, said most of it is still open and in particular the popular multipitch sectors are unaffected. 

As for the Sancy, I don't think Roche Tuilière is under a ban (?!), and Roche Sanadoire is discouraged due to the instability of the rock but not under an official ban, at least that was my understanding.  


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...