Climbing wall belay partner sued

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
 Chris_Mellor 04 Nov 2021

The Daily Mail has this story: "EXCLUSIVE: Climber who was paralysed from the waist down in accident at indoor wall sues partner who let go of the rope for £200,000."

( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10164325/Medical-student-paralysed... )

It says: "Ross Smith, 24, is paralysed from the waist down after plunging 30ft from the Sunderland Wall climbing centre’s artificial rockface four years ago." And: "he is suing climbing partner Mr [Spencer] Ollivier for negligence, saying that he let go of the belay rope, allowing him to crash down to the floor." Apparently Mr Ollivier admitted negligence in an earlier court hearing but the compensation amount is in dispute.

For what it's worth I think that this case should be thrown out of court and should never have got this far. As I see it, if you climb with a partner belaying you, then you implicitly accept the risk of a belaying accident. Also if you don't check your belay partner's ability then you are, surely and arguably, negligent?

Of course, if I was confined to a wheelchair with a broken back I might take a different view but hat doesn't mean it would be the right view.

24
 Rob Parsons 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

> For what it's worth I think that this case should be thrown out of court ...

Who cares what you think? The crux of the matter will be what the judge thinks.

> Of course, if I was confined to a wheelchair with a broken back I might take a different view but hat doesn't mean it would be the right view.

In general terms (and nothing to do with climbing), if you've been confined to a wheelchair on account of someone else's negligence, then it would reasonable to expect some compensation. Wouldn't it?

116
 Tyler 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

This may be the best argument yet for joining the BMC. I think this is covered by the third party liability insurance?

1
 Martin Hore 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Tyler:

> This may be the best argument yet for joining the BMC. I think this is covered by the third party liability insurance?

I think the BMC liability insurance will cover the belayer's liability if:

1. The case against the belayer succeeds in court.

2. The belayer (not necessarily the climber) is a BMC member.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can confirm.

Clearly a desperately unfortunate incident for all directly concerned. Much less importantly, but still unfortunately, if BMC insurance is required to pay out to the order of £200k we may all see an increase in premiums.

Martin

1
 MeMeMe 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

> For what it's worth I think that this case should be thrown out of court and should never have got this far. As I see it, if you climb with a partner belaying you, then you implicitly accept the risk of a belaying accident. Also if you don't check your belay partner's ability then you are, surely and arguably, negligent?

He was a novice climber in the University Mountaineering club paired up with someone else from the club for a warm up climb.

It would have been pretty difficult for him to ascertain his partner's ability. 

I mean how to you ascertain your partner's ability? I usually get them to climb first to see if they are obviously incompetent and then climb things I'm unlikely to fall off until I get to know them better but he might not have been in a position to do that. Indoors is actually worse in this regard than outdoors because as a minimum you have to rely on them to lower you competently.

2
 Toccata 04 Nov 2021
In reply to MeMeMe:

This is a reasonably well recognised tactic to gain financial compensation through liability insurance. My partner worked on a case where the husband had run over the family dog and ran up a £13k bill following specialist treatment. As the wife was the legal owner of the dog she 'sued' the husband (as per her husband's instructions) and the car insurance had to cough up the entire veterinary and legal bill. 

2
 PaulJepson 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

Do insurance companies typically pay out if you are (admissible in court) negligent?  

 FreshSlate 04 Nov 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> Do insurance companies typically pay out if you are (admissible in court) negligent?  

I assume if you hadn't done anything wrong you wouldn't be liable... 

 MeMeMe 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Toccata:

Suing is probably the guy who was injured's only path to get the extra support that he needs now he's in a a wheelchair, isn't liability insurance exactly for these circumstances?

1
 C Witter 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I don't know anything about the incident, but reading between the lines, it seems the injured climber was a novice at a weekly uni mountaineering club meet, climbing with someone he didn't know well who he perhaps thought was more experienced. For me, I'm less concerned by the litigation than by what it says about belaying practices and teaching of novices as, obviously, the priority is avoiding things like this happening in the first place.

Every time I go to a climbing wall I see belayers too far from the wall and belayers leaving a deckable amount of slack out. Often I see people standing out from the wall with a rope bag immediately in front of them, ready to trip them over if they get pulled inward. At Tryfan Bach, I once saw someone standing well out from the slab balanced on a boulder, as though they were just trying to work out the optimal position for getting pulled over and face-planting into the rock. Sometimes you see people who are trying to take in slack take their hand off the dead rope. Often, when people need to shift their hand up the rope, they fudge it and hold the rope or belay device with a poor grip to swap their hand up (e.g. using a thumb to squeeze the rope against the belay device). Frequently people put their atc-style devices on upside down. They persist in using "bug" style devices with skinny ropes. They don't lock off the belay device after giving out slack, but hold it open, often with the lock-off hand palm-up (this seems especially common in people over 50, suggesting the interference of some older technique). And when they lower off, they don't look up at the person they are lowering...

In general, it's a s*it show... but, I'm not quite sure what to do about it, as people generally don't appreciate you telling them that they're a dangerous belayer. Fortunately, most people are scared of falling off, or there would be a lot more accidents.

4
 spenser 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Is this not the same case which caused the BMC subs to go up a few years ago? Timeframes would match.

RE: the point made by MeMeMe, if climbing with someone new who I have doubts about the competence of and I am with a club I'll ask someone else to tail the rope for the belayer. If the belayer gets shirty with me for not being confident in their belaying I'd rather climb with someone else anyway. My body still functioning is far more important to me than the belayer's feelings!

 tomsan91 04 Nov 2021
In reply to MeMeMe:

If they were both paid up members of the Uni club they should be covered by the student unions insurance. So hopefully the belayer isn't going to be financially hurt by this case. Does make you wonder how long climbing walls will be able to keep competency tests limited to the sign in desks, seems like a woefully inadequate way to assess ability.

 gethin_allen 04 Nov 2021
In reply to MeMeMe:

> He was a novice climber in the University Mountaineering club paired up with someone else from the club for a warm up climb.

> It would have been pretty difficult for him to ascertain his partner's ability. 

I don't know the details but in this case you'd think that the club would hold some duty of care to ensure that the belayer had at least the minimum of training and observation and the club's insurance will be on the line.

It's a strange thing about climbing that you rarely think about these things when say out at a crag someone has lead something interesting and shouts down to ask you if you fancy seconding it or someone offers to belay you at the wall. I remember meeting up with someone at a wall who I knew only outside climbing but they had said that they had been doing a bit and could belay and I trusted them because they were pretty clever and sensible in general life. I tied on and climbed something only to be met by the wall walker when I was lowered to the floor as my belayer didn't have a clue what they were doing. That could have gone very wrong.

 TobyA 04 Nov 2021
In reply to spenser:

> Is this not the same case which caused the BMC subs to go up a few years ago? Timeframes would match.

That's what I immediately presumed too, although I suppose a payout happened in the case some time ago - hence the subs rise!

 Iamgregp 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Who cares what you think? The crux of the matter will be what the judge thinks. 

This is an internet forum, if you're not interested in hearing irrelevant opinions you've come to the wrong part of the internet!

After all, he did preface his opinion with "for what it's worth", acknowledging the fact that his opinion doesn't really count for anything in this matter, so there was really no need there was no need for such a terse response.

> In general terms (and nothing to do with climbing), if you've been confined to a wheelchair on account of someone else's negligence, then it would reasonable to expect some compensation. Wouldn't it?

Yes you probably have a point here.  But this is climbing.

2
 dunc56 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I'd want to know who paid the belayer £200k to let go of the rope !

19
 Tyler 04 Nov 2021
In reply to spenser:

> Is this not the same case which caused the BMC subs to go up a few years ago? Timeframes would match.

Not really, no award has been made yet.

2
 Iamgregp 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

The comments section under the article is brilliant by the way...

Some so far:

Two amateurs on the rope in this sport is wrong as no unqualified person should have that responsibility. The expert should always go first followed by the amateur!

I'm astonished that climbers rely on each other to break their falls, rather than some form of mechanical mechanism to stop the rope falling!! That aside, when you take part in a potentially dangerous sport (mine is motor racing) you have to accept the risk, you can't go suing other competitors...........

Surely you shouldn't rely on someone else holding a rope! Surely a safety harness of some sort should be worn, humans make mistakes!

If you check the belay system it is the fundamental requirement of rope climbing taught right at the beginning by a certified instructor. All equipment must be checked before proceeding with the climb. So you obviously have to check whether they were trained by a certified instructor. Makes you wonder what checks they do at these climbing wall centres. Do they check training are they insured?

1
 summo 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Whoever organised the trip for the uni is liable partially if they knowingly paired up two novices. However, the guy who fell didn't pay someone to belay him, they were students there of their own volition, over 18, he knew the belayer wasn't paid wall staff. He could have confirmed verbally or physically he knew what he was doing in advance. He knowingly participated in the sport accepting some level of risk. 

I think he'll get nothing. 

2
 summo 04 Nov 2021
In reply to tomsan91:

>  Does make you wonder how long climbing walls will be able to keep competency tests limited to the sign in desks, seems like a woefully inadequate way to assess ability.

Many walls don't. They have a quick assessment of a person's ability to put on a harness, tie in, belay and lower off. It takes ten mins max. 

 tomsan91 04 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Yes this is what I was referring to with the quick checks they do at the desk. I really don't see how they have avoided having to move to a more US approach with certification tags indicating ability to belay and lead. I guess maybe wall waivers in the UK have a greater amount of personal liability built in? There is some awful belaying out there mind and plenty of upside down harnesses being worn.

 spenser 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Tyler:

So 2 accidents involving NE University Climbing Clubs within 4-5 years at the same wall resulting in the climber requiring a wheelchair for life?

From what I remember the settlement hadn't been made at the time of the subs rise and the increase in cost was based on the predicted cost of the payout. Given the similarity between the two incidents and the similar timing I had assumed they were the same incident (I can't access the report at the moment due to the Daily Mail website being blocked on this computer).

 Misha 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> The comments section under the article is brilliant by the way...

> Surely you shouldn't rely on someone else holding a rope! Surely a safety harness of some sort should be worn, humans make mistakes!

Yeah, I always tell my partners not to bother holding the rope because my harness is tied to the other end so I can’t possibly fall.

3
 TheGeneralist 04 Nov 2021
In reply to C Witter:

> In general, it's a s*it show... but, I'm not quite sure what to do about it, as people generally don't appreciate you telling them that they're a dangerous belayer. 

Agreed  and it's not just novices. My last climbing trip to Mallorca was marked by my vastly experienced mate dropping me on the floor from above the fourth bolt.

It was completely surreal, I went Habrough the whole " oh, fallen, guess I'll stop soon" thing fir ages and ages till I hit the deck.

I looked over at him and he genuinely didn't know what  had gone wrong.  So we went DWS for what remained of the trip.

He's been climbing for around 30 years.

(PS, I hate Grigris)

7
 Graeme G 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I wonder if this case might ever extend to outdoor climbing? I’ve never used Facebook as a source for climbing partners, but there are plenty out there. What happens when two unfamiliar people pair up, with one suffering an injury?

Interesting case.

 Misha 04 Nov 2021
In reply to spenser:

I also assume it’s the same accident and it has now come to court but I don’t know for sure. In which case I assume the insurers are running the defence. For context, at the time of the subs increase, the claim was expected to be in the millions.

As regards liability, I’m not sure it’s wise to comment. Each case will be judged on its own facts and circumstances, taking into account previous case law. We don’t know all the facts and circumstances and we aren’t legal experts. 

 Iamgregp 04 Nov 2021
In reply to TheGeneralist:

> (PS, I hate Grigris)

Same.  Get a click-up.

10
 Misha 04 Nov 2021
In reply to TheGeneralist:

Sounds like misuse of the grigri. 

1
 Misha 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Tyler:

The insurance went up because a claim was made, not because an award was made. 

 Iamgregp 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

I know.  Harnesses.  Why didn't we think of them?!

2
 Pedro50 04 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

At Sunderland wall maybe two years ago I was toproping with my girlfriend who I had taught to belay. The floor walker asked to test our competence which we had no problem with. I tied on but she wouldn't accept my knot as I had threaded the end back through the knot rather than doing some half hitches. Fair enough I altered my knot.

I then toproped up about 20 feet before enthusiasticly throwing myself off without warning, all turned out well and my partner was recorded as competent for toproped belaying. 

Amazingly in Germany we had to demonstrate a figure of 8 knot on our first visit but subsequently they never ask who you are or if you're registered or have signed a disclaimer.

 spenser 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

Thanks Misha, my involvement with the legal side of things is broadly making sure that anything I work on is suitably well designed to avoid the need for legal issues to arise.

I definitely agree about leaving the liability to the legal people!

 C Witter 04 Nov 2021
In reply to TheGeneralist:

> Agreed  and it's not just novices.

Yes, indeed. I mean, sometimes there are accidents - the human errors that result not from incompetence but just from being tired, distracted or complacent with something overly familar. And then, there are the people who've done it "kind of badly" for years and years, but have not had an issue... yet. And then there are the people who are defensive because they want to be good and they've done the training and got some experience, etc., so they overestimate their own experience and knowledge. Sometimes it's better to have a relative novice, because they're more receptive to being bossed around and told: stand there, hold it like this, keep this much slack in and no more. But, in general, I think it's good for everyone to review their practices because belaying really well actually involves a lot of learning.

And sometimes belaying really well instead of quite well is the difference between your mate breaking their back and them not doing so. I remember some years ago climbing with a new friend who kept badgering me not to leave any excess slack in the rope. I thought he was just being nervy but did as he said, as he was more experienced than me and I had a lot of respect for him. On one of the last days we climbed together, he took a big fall on The Go Between (E2 5c), well above a no.1 nut. He was completely unharmed, but it was disturbing to realise that he'd finished up hanging horizontally, back-first, a foot or so from a ledge. I was quite glad I didn't have any excess slack in the rope that day.

4
 Ridge 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> The comments section under the article is brilliant by the way

This is some new useage of 'brilliant' I haven't previously encountered 😉

Make me pray that humanity will soon be obliterated by space aliens.

3
 Neil Williams 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> I'm astonished that climbers rely on each other to break their falls, rather than some form of mechanical mechanism to stop the rope falling!!

This is not at all ridiculous - it would not entirely surprise me to see indoor walls make brake-assist devices mandatory at some point in the future, there are now loads of them on the market (not just the cack-handed Grigri) and, while not guaranteed to, they have a high chance of stopping a fall not caught by a distracted or fumbling belayer.  It's sort of equivalent to wearing a seatbelt in a car rather than relying on the skill of the driver not to crash.

In Australian (or is it NZ?) walls they have Grigris in place on ground anchors and you must use those for top-roping, so there is precedent.

By the way on the subject of standing out from the wall, there is one exception - if using an Edelrid Ohm, the further out you stand, the more friction you get.  So if you see this look up to the first bolt, and if you see a green Grigri-like thing clipped there, stop worrying

(I have on a few occasions been asked by wall staff what on earth I was doing, climbing as I often do with someone less than half my weight with him stood a bit far out from the wall - just takes pointing out the little lime green gadget and explaining what it does, of course)

Post edited at 14:58
6
 Neil Williams 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Sounds like misuse of the grigri. 

Lowering with Grigris is horribly cack-handed and has a counterintuitive failure mode in that if you panic you will naturally grip the device harder which will release it (other than one of the more recent ones).  But there are tons of other better brake assist devices on the market now, so just pick one of those if you don't like Grigris.

If of course you do like them, use them, no reason for you not to

Post edited at 14:57
13
 Lankyman 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I witnessed a similar situation outdoors (fortunately with no-one hurt) many years ago. It was an SPA training session and, instructor apart, I was the only experienced climber. Demonstrating how to bottom rope the instructor chose the least competent of the non-climbers to work the belay. When the climber reached the top of the route and lowered off he got down much quicker than expected (free fall!). When he decked, everyone just went silent. Thankfully, the cratered one got up and dusted himself down. The instructor immediately apologised for not checking the knowledge base of the hapless 'belayer' and probably thanked his lucky stars under his breath.

 Neil Williams 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

FWIW what is such a shame is that personal liability insurance (e.g. the BMC policy or more general policies) doesn't allow a direct claim like car insurance does.  Would be much easier, save Court costs, be less stressful etc if the case is clear-cut as being covered by the policy.

Post edited at 15:01
 Neil Williams 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Lankyman:

Bit strange to hear of inexperienced climbers on SPA courses - you need stuff in your logbook including trad leads to even do the training, don't you?

But then sometimes people are lucky.  I'm sure I recall a friend telling me he fell about 10m while soloing and other than a bit of a twisted ankle completely got away with it.  He's quite light, which must surely have helped - I couldn't see me getting away with that.

Post edited at 15:03
 David Coley 04 Nov 2021

Whilst putting together a talk on belaying last year I checked the BMC incident log. If I remember rightly, a belaying incident is logged on average every 30 days. This seems to be a mix of novices and the experienced. I would expect only a very, very small fraction of incidents are logged, thus droppings that miss or fail to miss the floor might be daily.

It surprises me that most of the time in a belay lesson is spent teaching feeding the rope, not catching falls from various distances from the wall, with different weights of climber, when looking the other way, when the fall is at different parts of the feeding and take-in cycle, when the belayer is given no indication of when the climber might fall. I wonder if doing so might give people a better idea of the speed things happen in a fall, how vicious a fall can be, just how hard you need to hold on, that you have little chance of grabbing the rope after the rope has been weighted, just how paranoid you have to be.

A common misconception is that plates somehow kind of lock off the rope and stop the fall (assuming the break hand is in place). Whereas a plate simply multiplies the grip applied by the belayer. If that grip is low compared to the force applied if probably will not end well as a small (or near zero) number multipled by most things still ends up quite small.

A second misconception is that the rope kind of spins up to speed during a lead fall, giving some time to react. Whereas, as soon as the rope is weighted is it travelling fast. Even with a small lead fall this will be >25 miles an hour, and few would willing grab and hold a rope moving at that speed.

 99ster 04 Nov 2021
In reply to spenser:

> Is this not the same case which caused the BMC subs to go up a few years ago? Timeframes would match.

I thought there was also a huge cost incurred by Bear Grylls getting rescued from Antartica on some batshit 'adventure' that was unfortunately (for the BMC) covered by BMC insurance...?

1
 Howard J 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

You're confusing personal liability insurance with personal accident insurance.  You can take out accident insurance (individual BMC members get £10k of cover, which won't go far if you're seriously injured) and if you have an accident you can claim on that. with no need to prove that someone else was responsible.

Third party covers you in the event that your negligence causes someone else to be injured.  Of course, even if they have personal accident cover then if someone else is to blame then the insurers will try to recover the costs from that person, so it could still end up in court.

It astonishes me that people seem to think that climbing is somehow exempt from the usual rules.  If you are negligent, meaning you have failed to do what should be reasonably expected of a normally competent person, and as a result someone else gets injured then you can expect to be liable, whether that's when climbing, driving a car or riding a bike.  However that doesn't mean that a belayer will automatically be liable in a climbing accident, it will depend on whether or not they were negligent and that led to the injury.

We don't know all the facts in this particular case, but it is clear from the report that the belayer was found to be negligent, and as a result someone else suffered life-changing injuries.  

In reply to Howard J:

> Third party covers you in the event that your negligence causes someone else to be injured.  Of course, even if they have personal accident cover then if someone else is to blame then the insurers will try to recover the costs from that person, so it could still end up in court.

In my experience, which is admittedly with commercial damage claims, a liability insurer might only pay if the accident is random bad luck / happenstance e.g. due to an unforeseeable fault with an item.  Where a liable party has caused damage by being negligent e.g. ignoring industry standard "good practice" to mitigate a widely known hazard, insurers can seek to repudiate the claim, leaving the person personally liable.

 deepsoup 04 Nov 2021
In reply to tomsan91:

>  Does make you wonder how long climbing walls will be able to keep competency tests limited to the sign in desks, seems like a woefully inadequate way to assess ability.

If anything I think the converse is true, this is an argument for why the wall should not be assessing 'competency'.  All they have to gain by doing so is a slice of the liability if someone they have declared to be a 'competent' belayer drops their partner.

1
 Neil Williams 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

No, I'm definitely not.

If I crash my car into someone else's car, we exchange details and they claim direct from my third party motor insurance policy.  (They might go via their own comprehensive policy who then claim off mine, but they can do it direct if they want, and if their policy is only third party without legal protection they won't be able to and will have to claim from mine).  A court case is not necessary unless the insurer has grounds not to pay out.

Post edited at 15:48
2
 John Kelly 04 Nov 2021
In reply to topic

Revo?

2
 TheGeneralist 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Sounds like misuse of the grigri. 

Ineed. And if an ardent, fervent advocate of a GriGri can screw it up after approx 30 years of enthusiastic use then it's clearly sub optimal.

4
 Ridge 04 Nov 2021
In reply to David Coley:

> It surprises me that most of the time in a belay lesson is spent teaching feeding the rope, not catching falls from various distances from the wall, with different weights of climber, when looking the other way, when the fall is at different parts of the feeding and take-in cycle, when the belayer is given no indication of when the climber might fall.

I used to climb at Leeds wall many years ago, and was really impressed at the way many climbers had been taught really slick methods of feeding out the rope.

The number of near misses where people just managed to be caught before decking made me think that the concept they might have to handle an accidental fall rather than a controlled lower hadn't been reinforced.

 Ian W 04 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

> Whoever organised the trip for the uni is liable partially if they knowingly paired up two novices. However, the guy who fell didn't pay someone to belay him, they were students there of their own volition, over 18, he knew the belayer wasn't paid wall staff. He could have confirmed verbally or physically he knew what he was doing in advance. He knowingly participated in the sport accepting some level of risk. 

> I think he'll get nothing. 

There is precedent for the belayer being responsible; a case a few years ago saw the belayer held responsible for a fall causing injury at a wall where there was a "buddy up" arrangement for climbers turning up without a climbing partner.

 Ian W 04 Nov 2021
In reply to 99ster:

> I thought there was also a huge cost incurred by Bear Grylls getting rescued from Antartica on some batshit 'adventure' that was unfortunately (for the BMC) covered by BMC insurance...?

No, it was from an indoor fall, but the award was of an order of magnitude bigger than £200k

Post edited at 16:22
 Howard J 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

The same applies to personal injury claims.  Unlike car drivers, for whom insurance is mandatory, most people don't have personal accident insurance and their only chance of compensation comes from making a claim against the person whose negligence caused the accident, who will refer it to their insurer if they have one.

No one goes to court if it can be avoided, it is always better to negotiate a settlement where possible.  However it may not be obvious that the defendant had been negligent, so a court may have to decide, and the amount of the claim might also be disputed, especially since the claims for significant injuries are invariably going to be large. 

We only get to hear about those cases which make it to court, and only a few of those will be widely reported.  Those which are settled between the parties and their insurers remain private

 Neil Williams 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

> The same applies to personal injury claims.  Unlike car drivers, for whom insurance is mandatory, most people don't have personal accident insurance

Actually, most people do but don't realise it.  It's a very common component of household insurance.  Sometimes it's restricted to liability arising from home ownership, but not always.  It very often for example covers cycling (so the old thing about "cyclists should be insured" is answered quite easily with "many are but just don't know it").

Of course regarding climbing BMC members do too.

For what it's worth in Germany it's usual for people to carry their own specific liability policy rather than it being hidden in home insurance (quite possibly because most Germans rent, not own).  The extra awareness this would bring means that's a very good thing and perhaps could do with being so here too.

Post edited at 16:41
3
 JayEdwards 04 Nov 2021

Hi everybody

I happen to be very familiar with this accident and know some of the individuals involved.

I feel its worth saying that nobody involved would have wanted the Daily Mail to get their hands on this and make an article out of it, and the article itself leaves out a significant amount of important information regarding the events that led to the accident, the accident itself and the follow up and should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

the comments section in the article itself is full of people who are waaay too confident in their ill informed opinions, but perhaps that should be expected of the daily mail…

The accident was very traumatic and shocking for ALL parties  involved and I just feel thats worth bearing in mind when having these discussions regarding liability and responsibility. Not that I am seeking to stop people having these discussions…

thanks 🙂

 tomsan91 04 Nov 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Most walls seem to offer courses for both top roping and lead climbing where they must make some judgement on competence before signing off on allowing you to climb unsupervised. I'm not sure how the liability would be any different if they applied this to anyone else walking in off the street looking to climb. It just seems odd that I've had more scrutiny over using a treadmill safely at a normal gym than I've ever had a climbing wall look at how well I can hold a fall.

 deepsoup 04 Nov 2021
In reply to tomsan91:

I doubt the amount of scrutiny over a treadmill versus that at a climbing wall would seem so strange viewed purely from the point of view of insurance premiums.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that a treadmill in a gym generates a lot more claims than an indoor route!

I don't know about someone completing a beginner's climbing course, but I would guess that a coach/instructor teaching beginners has insurance that a receptionist 'assessing' experienced climbers on their way in the door for the first time does not.

The 'competence' tests for experienced climbers at walls (where they do them at all) are cursory at best, but they have no need to assess anyone's competence anyway.  From the wall's point of view all they need is to establish that someone has enough knowledge and experience to understand and accept the normal risks associated with the activity.  Once that is done, the wall is off the hook for any personal injury suffered by that climber unless they were negligent in some contributory way.

By way of an example, I note something that Ian W posted above:
"There is precedent for the belayer being responsible; a case a few years ago saw the belayer held responsible for a fall causing injury at a wall where there was a "buddy up" arrangement for climbers turning up without a climbing partner."

Note that he talks about the belayer being responsible, not the wall.  It might not have been to the wall's advantage if they had 'assessed' that belayer and given them a 'competent belayer' gold star before they subsequently turned out not to be.

 tomsan91 04 Nov 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I'm not going to copy and past the UIAAs report on litigation between climbing walls and injured users. But the concluding remarks of the document clearly outline why relying completely on the defence of informed risk and self certification of competence might not be as bomb proof in the future.

With increased participation and more wall users seeing climbing as a causal activity where there is only a controlled environment and expect little risk. One could see a judge pass a sympathetic verdict to let's say a parent of two claimant who has lost the use of their legs and is now unable to provide for said dependants. I know its hyperbole but it's a probable outcome in todays society.

 steveb2006 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> The comments section under the article is brilliant by the way...

Daily Mail readers for you.

 Tom Valentine 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Ha! First time I climbed with you, you became airborne on the Gates and only my waist belaying skills and a stopper  prevented a meeting with the base of the Cromlech. 

You must have assessed my ability as a belayer during the less interesting parts of Tydeman's Late Middle English lectures at Top College.

1
 summo 04 Nov 2021
In reply to tomsan91:

Probably a sign of the future. I'd say 20-30 years ago indoor walls were in the main a rainy day or winter alternative for outdoor climbers, the numbers arriving at a wall having never climbed at all was minimal. 

Now, they aren't walls they are gyms! The home of those who never climb on rock, stag dos, kids birthday parties, boulderers and so on. 

6
 tehmarks 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Ridge:

>The number of near misses where people just managed to be caught before decking made me think that the concept they might have to handle an accidental fall rather than a controlled lower hadn't been reinforced.

My (experienced) ex girlfriend once had a go at me for having the temerity to fall off an indoor lead without warning her first.  That was a bit off-putting — I mean I try not to expect to fall off things and just assume my belayer will actually be doing their job without prompting...

 Howard J 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Actually, most people do but don't realise it.  It's a very common component of household insurance.  

Not personal accident cover, so far as I am aware.  Third party liability is usually included, although for contents-only policies it may be limited to your liabilities as a tenant. My point was that most people who suffer an accident aren't in a position to claim on their own personal accident insurance policy and will have to make a claim against whoever caused the accident.  If they do have insurance then the insurance company will probably make a claim against the third party.  Either way it could end up in court. Of course this assumes that there was a third party who had negligently caused the accident and who could be held liable.

 teapot 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Sad news about the accident! 

I visit a lot of walls both as a climbing instructor and with my daughter. 

I was particularly impressed with a method of assessing belaying competency at The Boardroom last week- they showed me about 10 photos with common belaying errors that you have to identify. Took about 1 minute, but would have caught out inexperienced belayers.

I also remember my first trip to The Foundry by in 1996 at the age of 15 (maybe 16). Learnt to tie a figure of 8 on a shoe lace on the train off my mate who had been shown the week before. They did check I could do it on arrival. 

 Ridge 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

> Not personal accident cover, so far as I am aware.  Third party liability is usually included

+1. I can't ever recall seeing personal accident cover on a household insurance policy.

 Neil Williams 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Ridge:

Nor I.  I think it got rather twisted in the discussion somehow.

It is common for home insurance to contain personal liability cover.  This is sometimes limited to liability arising specifically from home ownership or tenancy (e.g. a slate falls off your roof through next door's car windscreen), but often it is not, and I did a while back get it in writing from Direct Line that the home buildings and contents cover I had back then would cover me if, while cycling, I accidentally damaged a car.

Post edited at 22:19
3
In reply to MeMeMe:

> Suing is probably the guy who was injured's only path to get the extra support that he needs now he's in a a wheelchair, isn't liability insurance exactly for these circumstances?

Also, if the climber who was injured has insurance the company who issued the insurance will very likely make them sue because if they can make the belayer pay they won't have to.

 Neil Williams 04 Nov 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Also, if the climber who was injured has insurance the company who issued the insurance will very likely make them sue because if they can make the belayer pay they won't have to.

The main point of liability insurance is to indemnify you if you get sued, assuming the policy's conditions are met. 

Post edited at 22:23
 Jamie Wakeham 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I don't quite understand what the issue is here.  If this was part of a university club activity, then the belayer will have liability insurance through their club BMC membership.  Surely the whole point is that of course the climber has to sue the belayer, in order to establish a claim upon that insurance?

If I did something unbelievably wrong and put a climber into a wheelchair for life, I would absolutely expect them to sue me, because there's £15M liability insurance in place and this sort of scenario is exactly what it's for.

 Misha 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I used to hate the grigri because I couldn’t pay out quickly, until I realised I wasn’t using it right. Petzl do handy videos to explain. However the real issue is people using them in dangerous as opposed to inefficient ways. I’m pretty happy with them now but tend to prefer the Edelerid Eddy.

2
 Misha 04 Nov 2021
In reply to TheGeneralist:

> Ineed. And if an ardent, fervent advocate of a GriGri can screw it up after approx 30 years of enthusiastic use then it's clearly sub optimal.

Or they’ve been using to wrong for 30 years…

 Rob Parsons 04 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> This is an internet forum, if you're not interested in hearing irrelevant opinions you've come to the wrong part of the internet!

Fair comment.

> Yes you probably have a point here.  But this is climbing.

I actually don't see much difference between climbing and any other activity. Accidents happen, obviously - but if someone is found to be negligent then it's reasonable to expect consequences.

What are your climbing-specific arguments?

 Misha 04 Nov 2021
In reply to thebigfriendlymoose:

That’s not how car insurance works though. I think commercial insurance is always going to be different (narrower) than personal but I’m no expert. 

1
 Neil Williams 05 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

Indeed, car insurance specifically exists to pay for damage/injury caused through negligence, pretty much (very rare for a car accident to be caused by unforeseeable mechanical failure, even blowouts are mostly caused by failure to change tyres at an appropriate interval, a puncture is usually just slower air escape rather than catastrophic failure).

Post edited at 00:04
 Michael Hood 05 Nov 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> My (experienced) ex girlfriend ...

My immediate thought was experienced climber or experienced (ex) girlfriend 😁

Post edited at 06:57
 Iamgregp 05 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I actually don't see much difference between climbing and any other activity. Accidents happen, obviously - but if someone is found to be negligent then it's reasonable to expect consequences.

> What are your climbing-specific arguments?

I guess I see that there's a certain amount of risk and danger involved with climbing.  I know we all do what we can to minimise and negate risk of injury or death, and that in general climbing is a perfectly safe activity but we all know it's there and that climbing comes with a certain amount of risk.  

When I walk into my local climbing wall there's a huge yellow sign above the door telling you it's a dangerous activity.  Not sure I'd see the same if I walked into my local golf or snooker club.  I think that sets it apart from other certain other activities.

That being said, I really don't know how I feel about this case.  On the one hand the guy is going to need long term care and support, and that needs to be paid for, and has lost a great deal of quality of life, and it's entirely the belayers fault so it's correct that he is sued and his insurers pay for it.

On the other hand, nobody made the injured party tie on to that rope and be belayed by him, he could see that he was using an ATC (I assume he was at least) and he wasn't there representing himself as some kind of professional, or expert or professionally qualified  belayer.  It was simply a matter of trust and and he decided to put his faith in the him.  Some people (and I'm not arguing this myself) may say that it was his misguided trust in the belayer and wrong decision to allow himself to be belayed by him that led to this awful situation.

Of course, if it was some kind of freak accident like the other thread on the autobelay failing, or say the walls top rope snapped or the chains failed then sure, no question there.  Whilst we accept some kind of risk, it's reasonable expect to accept that risk in a well maintained environment, where the equipment will not fail. 

However I think what we can all agree is that this is a pretty shitty thing to happen, and I hope the two guys involved are able to recover as best they can from this terrible accident.

FWIW, I don't let anyone belay me on lead on an ATC unless they are super, super experienced.  

9
 wercat 05 Nov 2021
In reply to David Coley:

> It surprises me that most of the time in a belay lesson is spent teaching feeding the rope, not catching falls 

Hah! - my first experience of belaying (in fact first proper  climb at all) was on Flying Buttress in the Pass.  I was horrified to find I'd be repsonsible for someone's life with so little warning.  Baptism of fire as the rather unconfident leader teaching me fell out of the chimney on the top pitch.   So the practice was with "live" rounds as it were!

Post edited at 15:31
 FreshSlate 05 Nov 2021
In reply to tomsan91:

> I'm not going to copy and past the UIAAs report on litigation between climbing walls and injured users. But the concluding remarks of the document clearly outline why relying completely on the defence of informed risk and self certification of competence might not be as bomb proof in the future.

> With increased participation and more wall users seeing climbing as a causal activity where there is only a controlled environment and expect little risk. One could see a judge pass a sympathetic verdict to let's say a parent of two claimant who has lost the use of their legs and is now unable to provide for said dependants. I know its hyperbole but it's a probable outcome in todays society.

This doesn't make much sense to me.

We've always had university clubs, children and beginners since the first climbing wall opened. 

People being introduced to climbing for the first time still have the basically same experience as 20 years ago. They're explained the risks, taught the skills in very much the same way.

There's nothing new happening here at all. Perhaps the pure volume of climbers makes litigation more likely but I don't see any evidence that it's because Generation Z are treating it any more casually than any other generation. 

 Iamgregp 05 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

The comments section under here is the gift that keeps on giving:

Surely the climbing centre is liable for this accident unless both climbers were certified and qualified to belay each other.

They should be made to wear fixed lines, especially in a controlled inside environment.

Good sports centre climbing wall users are offered an auto belay device to stop you falling. I think he should sue the sports centre.

3
 SierraDelta 05 Nov 2021
In reply to FreshSlate:

Even without climbing changing, society's attitudes to risk has changed. Things that were acceptable before might not be in the future. 

Is the experience new climbers have now the same as it was? When you learn in smaller walls or tight knit groups you learn a lot more from the people around you, and it tends to develop a fairly good safety culture. 

But with more people climbing on bigger walls, I imagine it's a lot easier to feel anonymous and cut off from everyone else? Which in turn means that people get into bad habits without it being noticed. What put me off of joining a group at my current uni is that it felt far too much like climbing with an anonymous bunch of strangers each week? 

1
 Rob Parsons 05 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> I guess I see that there's a certain amount of risk and danger involved with climbing.

You appear to have bought into some self-aggrandizing dirt-bagging myth. Some aspects of climbing and mountaineering are indeed risky - that's very much their intellectual point - but the training activities going on in indoor climbing gyms are about as edgy and risky as are tiddlywink competitions. Sorry to burst that bubble.

I assume that you might accept that, were someone to be injured in an indoor climbing gym as a result of, say, negligent and inadequate maintenance of an auto-belay, there might be some legal case to answer? If so, why should behaviour of any other kind which is proven to be negligent be any different?

20
 SierraDelta 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

If it was as edgy and risky as a game of tiddlywinks then how exactly has this 20 year old student ended up paralysed and wheelchair bound for the rest of his life?

 FreshSlate 06 Nov 2021
In reply to SierraDelta:

> Even without climbing changing, society's attitudes to risk has changed. Things that were acceptable before might not be in the future. 

Sure. Welcome to the forum.

> Is the experience new climbers have now the same as it was? When you learn in smaller walls or tight knit groups you learn a lot more from the people around you, and it tends to develop a fairly good safety culture. 

I think it largely is the same there, you're not interacting with everyone you're interacting generally within a group and it doesn't matter if there's 100 or 1,000 people around you. I think average capacity probably has gone up but more in bouldering walls than anything else. I haven't found new roped walls to be all that much bigger.

> But with more people climbing on bigger walls, I imagine it's a lot easier to feel anonymous and cut off from everyone else? Which in turn means that people get into bad habits without it being noticed. What put me off of joining a group at my current uni is that it felt far too much like climbing with an anonymous bunch of strangers each week? 

I'm just not sure about this, is there any reason to think that one person's poor practice / technique is less likely to be picked up by 10 people than 1 person?

I don't see how larger centres make strangers climbing together more likely (if this is even a bad thing). Larger uni clubs or groups with higher turnover, sure. 

 Rob Parsons 06 Nov 2021
In reply to SierraDelta:

> If it was as edgy and risky as a game of tiddlywinks then how exactly has this 20 year old student ended up paralysed and wheelchair bound for the rest of his life?

The claim, of course, is that that has happened through negligence on the part of his belayer. 

 Offwidth 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

There are plenty of indoor accidents that don't involve any negligence, especially in bouldering walls. People get injured in falls that were held (especially in uncontrolled falls where the climber hits the wall). Indoor climbing is not tiddlywinks unless you play a very violent version of that classic children's game. 

Post edited at 10:37
 jcw 06 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Having been senior member for a major university club for twenty years and very well aware of that responsibility I don't think you really understand the problems of beginners' meets. The belayers are all too often necky second years who now consider themselves as experts. I don't know about walls which have a special legal status but I do about outdoors where beginners' meets always went. The problems really arise later in the winter terms when the club wants to start climbing having done their initial stint for the novices and decide to go to a place like Pembroke.  No official of the club can really supervise pairing off, a fortiori when it comes to the first alpine meet (which is why we stopped these being official meets)  Accidents happen and that unfortunately is how the system works, or rather used to work when the emphasis was on the outdoors. As an experienced climber yourself, you must be aware that your expertise  was often hard learnt and all too often due to sheer good luck. The alternative is to tame the whole game down which seems to be the practice in the club nowadays.

 Howard J 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> I guess I see that there's a certain amount of risk and danger involved with climbing.  I know we all do what we can to minimise and negate risk of injury or death

A crucial part of that mitigation is that there is someone to hold the rope and catch us if we fall.  If they negligently fail to do that, then they could be legally liable.  They owe a legal duty of care to the other person and this isn't diminished simply because they are both engaged in a potentially dangerous activity. Climbing isn't excused from the normal laws of the land.  However accidents can happen which are not the fault of anyone else, and in that case you're on your own.

I'm not sure how we're supposed to judge whether our belayer is competent to catch us.  Deliberately jumping off has obvious flaws, if it turns out they're not.  I suppose you could hope someone else falls while they're belaying, but that may not be possible. I'm a cautious climber who tries to avoid falling, so most of the people I climb with have never had to catch me and I just have to trust in their wider experience.  For that matter, it must be several years since I last had to hold a significant fall, and my partners have to rely on my previous experience of holding falls using a variety of methods (including body belays, Sticht plates and even ATCs) to feel confident that I could do so.

 Philb1950 06 Nov 2021
In reply to tomsan91:

I was at a climbing wall, I’ll not say which, when a young instructor was top roping a trainee who fell off and came out of the harness, luckily near to the ground and unhurt. We’d already noticed the harness was wrong and said so, to be told that they, the instructor was qualified, to which my climbing partner replied he was a UIAA guide of 20 years standing and the harness was wrong. No further comment. So it’s not just unqualified climbers who can be incompetent. 

1
 steve_gibbs 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I agree Chris. I’m saddened to see the American liability culture make it over here and it opens a whole can of worms for anyone partaking in any extreme sport, especially high risk activities like Alpinism, where you so often do 21 hour, sleep-deprived, oxygen-starved days, where it’s easy to make mistakes. 
 

This will no doubt hit university clubs, who are majority young inexperienced climbers and creates a terrifying precedent for anyone ever climbing with anyone else, as human error is an intrinsic part of life. I fear the only way forward is to take up soloing.

7
 summo 06 Nov 2021
In reply to jcw:

> Having been senior member for a major university club for twenty years .....The belayers are all too often necky second years who now consider themselves as experts

Isn't that your job as an adult to reign the kids in, it's potentially life saving.

>  No official of the club can really supervise pairing off

Why? It's that or you have very clear legal terms, read and signed, before they even arrive at a wall or crag. It's very unstudent club but maybe some folk need to be told they are good enough to be leaders and others that they aren't competent yet. 

> Accidents happen

Nope. Invariable they are caused, apart from naturally fall rocks or sheep... most accidents have a human trigger, ie. They aren't random chance.

> was often hard learnt and all too often due to sheer good luck.

Never by dropping someone! No such thing as good or bad luck. Climbing is a numbers game, climb say a thousand days and eventually something will naturally fall off a crag, so you better play the same game and always put a helmet on. (Once had a full sigg bottle coming bouncing down Cioch Grooves at me!) The same with random untrained incompetent belayers, it's just a matter of time and you'll be dropped, so they shouldn't be belaying unsupervised. Like you do with kids, one belays, another holds the rope behind and nearby. 

> The alternative is to tame the whole game down which seems to be the practice in the club nowadays.

No, it's that balance of judgement so folk learn in small increments, not having untrained novices belaying without being shadowed. This is the responsibility that a leader, instructors or organisers have when managing groups. 

7
 SierraDelta 06 Nov 2021
In reply to jcw:

Reining in other members and ensuring that people follow best practice is part of the job! I was on the committee of a Uni club for a few years and we always had the attitude that safety is everyone's responsibility. Accidents certainly happen but we don't give them a helping hand by being fatalistic and not teaching best practice...

>  The alternative is to tame the whole game down which seems to be the practice in the club nowadays.

Or, clubs have realised that teaching people the hard way, getting through it with sheer good luck and generally being reckless isn't a safe or enjoyable way to do things? I left my uni club a couple of years back but we changed the way we did things because Uni clubs 20+ years ago used to have unacceptable accident (and fatality) rates. 

The best way to experience risk is to get good and then push the envelope to your heart's content. Not playing fast and loose with basic competence.

1
 bpmclimb 06 Nov 2021
In reply to SierraDelta:

> Reining in other members and ensuring that people follow best practice is part of the job! I was on the committee of a Uni club for a few years and we always had the attitude that safety is everyone's responsibility. Accidents certainly happen but we don't give them a helping hand by being fatalistic and not teaching best practice...

Agreed, except that it's generally agreed these days that "good practice" is a better phrase, since "best practice" rather implies that there's only one acceptable way of doing things.

2
 Offwidth 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

Didn't he go to the desk and report dangerous practice?

I'm of the opposite view of Rob. I can watch rock climbers at the top of their game climb serious and hard routes knowing an accident is unlikely due to skill, fitness, mental control and focus. Indoors should be many orders of magnitude safer, yet I can't go to an indoor roped venue without seeing very variable focus of belayers and at least some bad practice. I think a significant proportion of experienced climbers are just lazy or too easily distracted indoors and don't take the risks seriously enough, so we have plenty of preventable accidents. It's much rarer to see complete incompetence: I have been asked by a stranger to remind them how they should tie-in; and my all time favourite was a guy about to lead a sport route with his partner who had his belay plate on the far end of the rope (true Darwin award territory).

Accidents seem much more common in indoor bouldering, mainly wrists and ankles. It's rare I've climbed in busy venues more than a few times in a row without seeing someone who has fallen badly and needing a visit to A&E.

The idea of someone belaying who might not be competent makes me shudder.....do people really allow someone to belay them when they have no clear assurance they are trustworthy? Such a situation should certainly never happen in a club, unless their system of teaching beginners is not fit for purpose.

Post edited at 18:07
2
 summo 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> yet I can't go to an indoor roped venue without seeing very variable focus of belayers and at least some bad practice. I think a significant proportion of experimental climbers are just lazy or too easily distracted indoors and don't take the risks seriously enough, so we have plenty of preventable accidents. 

I think if you start outdoors you often belay with the leader or second out of sight or even clear sound, so you might have no prior warning they'll fall. This instills better technique, good hand work, you can keep shuffling the hands whilst enjoying the mountain view. Give it a few hundred or thousand plus hours and you certainly don't need to look at your hands and indoors you can afford to look around, as you know you always have a hand on, you see many novices barely have hold of it and could certainly not lock off quickly if the leader fell.

2
 deepsoup 06 Nov 2021
In reply to jcw:

> I don't know about walls which have a special legal status but I do about outdoors where beginners' meets always went.

Walls don't have a special legal status.  If a belayer can be found liable for negligence after their partner decks indoors then the same thing can happen at the crag.

 deepsoup 06 Nov 2021
In reply to steve_gibbs:

> I fear the only way forward is to take up soloing.

Or take up third-party liability insurance which, happily, you get thrown in with your BMC membership.

 Rob Parsons 06 Nov 2021
In reply to steve_gibbs:

> ...  it opens a whole can of worms for anyone partaking in any extreme sport, especially high risk activities like Alpinism ...

Alpinism was precisely the climbing activity to which I was intending to contrast the noddy activity of indoor climbing wall training in my previous replies: the activity involves real and obvious risks (which is, after all, its entire philosophical point.)

However, since you now mention it explicitly: are you aware of any cases (or indeed any increasing trends in such cases) in which one equal status climbing partner has sued another for negligence as a result of an incident in serious alpinism? I'm not - but I'm interested in your comments.

(I am of course aware of negligence claims against guides - but that's a distinct commercial proposition.)

2
 fred99 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

> I was at a climbing wall, I’ll not say which, when a young instructor was top roping a trainee who fell off and came out of the harness, luckily near to the ground and unhurt. We’d already noticed the harness was wrong and said so, to be told that they, the instructor was qualified, to which my climbing partner replied he was a UIAA guide of 20 years standing and the harness was wrong. No further comment. So it’s not just unqualified climbers who can be incompetent. 

I've seen and been spoken to by young instructors at walls in the past, who demonstrably didn't know diddly about what they were doing, even though they must have got some sort of qualification. (I guess from the Wall Manager).

I've also had the misfortune to know one idiot, who acquired a Summer ML, presumably because he got on well with the instructors (who were fellow teachers !), but was known in the club for NEVER looking at either map or compass. This person was involved in FOUR callouts to MRT, all down to starting out late and getting into trouble because of it.

Maybe it's about time people couldn't get qualifications at their place of work, but had to go elsewhere to be checked by someone without an interest in getting extra instructors on the books.

 Offwidth 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Smiler got sued.

3
 Pedro50 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Smiler got sued.

Unsuccessfully if I recall, and not while acting as a paid guide? (I admit my memory may be faulty) 

 summo 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Pedro50:

> Unsuccessfully if I recall, and not while acting as a paid guide? (I admit my memory may be faulty) 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodroffe-Hedley_v_Cuthbertson

It's complex, as it always is.

Note. And completely irrelevant to the current climbing wall case.

Post edited at 20:54
 Pedro50 06 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Thanks summo, I appear to be incorrect on both assertions. 

 summo 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Pedro50:

> Thanks summo, I appear to be incorrect on both assertions. 

There have been others similar, some successful, others not.

 Rob Parsons 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Smiler got sued.

I'm well aware of that case. But it was associated with a commercial guide/client relationship, which is what I explicitly excluded from my question above.

2
 Rob Parsons 06 Nov 2021
In reply to Pedro50:

> Unsuccessfully if I recall, and not while acting as a paid guide? (I admit my memory may be faulty) 

You are incorrect on both counts, Pedro50, but you can google for it. In any event, it's completely irrelevant to the current discussion.

Post edited at 23:04
3
 jcw 06 Nov 2021
In reply to SierraDelta:and Summo

I never  said to play hard and fast, on the contrary. And how do you get good and what is best practice?, These are facile statements that do not get to the basis of the problem for those responsible at universities.,And on what basis do you state unacceptable rates of death in the past?  And in reply to Summo I clearly misunderstood your experience. I have yet to meet a serious alpinist who can say hand on heart that there have not been moments of luck in getting away with it: and vice versa, I can give you innumerable cases of people being killed in the mountains by sheer bad luck. 

 SierraDelta 07 Nov 2021
In reply to jcw:

> and Summo

> I never  said to play hard and fast, on the contrary. And how do you get good and what is best practice?, These are facile statements that do not get to the basis of the problem for those responsible at universities.,

I was one of those people responsible at university clubs. Top rope belaying standards on crags and indoor walls is something that clubs have no excuse not to be keeping an eye on. It's one of the simplest risks to control and training people how to belay properly doesn't even take long. If your club couldn't supervise that I'd be concerned.

I don't understand how good practice is facile or superficial? It's quite a simple concept. 

> And on what basis do you state unacceptable rates of death in the past?  

Don't have the data to hand but it's a well known issue. University mountaineering clubs used to have a terrible safety record, which is why Glenmore Lodge and Plas Y Brenin(?) started offering SMART training courses etc. As part of the culture shift over the last couple of decades I believe that students have gone from one of the most dangerous demographics on the mountains to one of the safest. 

> I have yet to meet a serious alpinist who can say hand on heart that there have not been moments of luck in getting away with it: and vice versa, I can give you innumerable cases of people being killed in the mountains by sheer bad luck. 

We're not talking about serious alpinists though, we're talking about students on top-ropes. Luck and getting away with it ought not to come into it. 

Post edited at 00:32
 wbo2 07 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:  the problem with starting outdoors , as you suggest, on blind multipitch routes is that in reality falls are rare, and the belayer isn't tested.  What you think is good practice may not be the case.

 You'll get a lot more experience,  and hold a lot more falls climbing indoors than in many years climbing easy routes outdoors.   

You could fix this with standardised teaching and testing - you don't climb till you've taken a course and test. A standardised test across all walls would save a lot of people problems.  It might be a bit 'noddy' for people here, but maybe not - some of the worst belaying I've seen is from people with a lot of apparently bad experience.  

 summo 07 Nov 2021
In reply to jcw:

> And in reply to Summo I clearly misunderstood your experience. I have yet to meet a serious alpinist who can say hand on heart that there have not been moments of luck in getting away with it: and vice versa, I can give you innumerable cases of people being killed in the mountains by sheer bad luck. 

It's just not luck, good or bad, it's chance statistics and probability. Be it lighting, serac collapse, avalanche, rock fall, leader or second fall... you stack the odds in your favour: you train, you train more, you read the weather, the terrain and snow conditions, the previous and future weather, you pick your partners for the route, you adapt as you go, you favour speed over 6hrs rather than speed over a few hundred metres of dodgy ground, you pick the right time of day for that route etc...  I'm a bit of a planner, there is nothing I really leave to chance and just hope the odds are with me, or what you call luck, that includes who holds my rope in a wall. 

Yeah, I've had a couple of what you'd call near misses and I learnt. But they weren't luck related, I screwed up, I missed something I should have seen done or considered, however small or trivial it initially appeared and when added to other factors things go wrong. It's human error a personal mistake, not an accident. 

 summo 07 Nov 2021
In reply to wbo2:

> You could fix this with standardised teaching and testing - you don't climb till you've taken a course and test. A standardised test across all walls would save a lot of people problems.  It might be a bit 'noddy' for people here, but maybe not - some of the worst belaying I've seen is from people with a lot of apparently bad experience.  

Outdoors, there is an argument that the more gentile pace of outdoor belaying allows people to learn good techniques before they need to work faster indoors, where as you say the likelihood of having to catch a fall is certainly higher.

Testing: had to do it when I arrived in sweden despite being a uk mountain instructor. I had to tie in, belay, then lower someone off, to get my 'green' card, it should have been several evenings, but I spoke to the assessor who is in the club and did it using my 8 year old in 5 mins. It's a similar process of assessment for a red card to use lead walls and is accepted across sweden, you don't have to do all the box ticking at each wall independently. Yeah it's noddy, but it's only really climbers helping other climbers getting climbing safely, we just had a chat about climbing whilst going through the motions.

Post edited at 07:04
 elsewhere 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Is it possible for a normal adult not to be liable for negligent behaviour?

 Offwidth 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I guess that's because I disagree with your view on it's relevance and see no reason why you have any authority to rule it out. Smiler wasn't incompetent and his client was an experienced climber and a friend. His client sadly died after Smiler (having to move fast in rapidly deterioratiing conditions) fell on lead and the belay failed. I see it as very likely that at some point we will have an alpine climber sued by the family of a dead or severely injured partner. Being in a paid contract just makes legal action more likely.

In climbing games that are much lower risk but much more more popular, like indoor climbing, those lower risks are multiplied by larger numbers and can give the similar numbers of bad accidents as in alpine situations. If some climbers feel the lower risk  activity is completely safe and stop paying due attention accident numbers will increase further. Hence I think your disparaging nonsense about tiddlywinks is foolish.

Doug had a good article on the subject of legal action in the mountains in the Alpine Journal (which includes the Smiler case and several others):

https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1998_files/AJ%25201998%2...

 Offwidth 07 Nov 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

I'd say yes. I've seen near misses in student groups where new climbers have been persuaded to belay someone when reluctant and where they lacked the experience to do so in the specific circumstances (most commonly when using a different device to the only one they had used before). The negligent behaviour in that case is with the person who persuaded them.

As SierraDelta points out, student climbing clubs improved safety practices significantly over the decades with the help of various organisations (in our case mainly the BMC). I was involved with club safety practice from the late 80s until around 2010. My motivation was certainly 'kickstarted': on my first outdoor trip in the club a group of novices in dirty boots were belayed from the top of a classic route that was roo hard for them by an inexperienced climber only clipped into the belay via a gear loop, whilst the more experienced club members climbed together on a different part of the crag. 

Post edited at 08:23
Andy Gamisou 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> but the training activities going on in indoor climbing gyms are about as edgy and risky as are tiddlywink competitions. Sorry to burst that bubble.

Never seen anyone snap their ankle playing tiddlywinks, have seen someone do that on a bouldering wall.  If you really think indoor climbing has such negligible risk then I'd certainly not be wanting to climb with you at one (and I'm sure you wouldn't want to climb at one with me).

Post edited at 08:26
 Rob Parsons 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> Never seen anyone snap their ankle playing tiddlywinks ...

Have you forgotten the famous incident at the '95 World Champs?

2
 veteye 07 Nov 2021
In reply to fred99:

I "liked" your response, but I would argue that starting out late does not automatically result in getting into trouble. I often drive up to Scotland from a long way away, and start going up Munros/hills at 12-1pm on my own between November and March. I not uncommonly get to the top, either in the dark or in the gloaming. (Admittedly I think that I navigate much more carefully most times, when I am on my own, plus I always have a bivi-bag, just in case). 

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

I’ve seen far more people stretchered out from indoor walls than from the crag. Including a full height fall at The Edge back in the day. That’s apart from the walking wounded with popped pulleys.
It’s a pointless exercise willy waving over relative risk of the activity when in most cases the risk usually comes from an error. Otherwise, some wag might observe that making easy moves on grit with cams above ones head (the statistical median on the logbooks) only qualifies as ‘adventure sport’ if you’ve got an incompetent second 😂😂

And joking aside, I think it’s easy to become desensitised and blasé about the risk and responsibility we all take onboard as belayers. The surprise isn’t that civil action has taken place, rather that there has been so little historically. A very good friend of mine had her spine fused after being dropped. No litigation, but that was a long time ago, and times are thankfully changing.

Post edited at 09:43
2
 Offwidth 07 Nov 2021
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Well said Paul.

 UKB Shark 07 Nov 2021
In reply to spenser:

> So 2 accidents involving NE University Climbing Clubs within 4-5 years at the same wall resulting in the climber requiring a wheelchair for life?

The linked article in the OP says the accident occurred in 2017 so it must be the same one. The talk then was of the claim being much higher than £200k. £200k seems low compensation for a lifetime of reduced earnings and expenses associated with being in a wheelchair. 

 Philb1950 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I know and like Smiler, but a single ice screw belay and especially for a guide and client is not safe. Also falling on the Tour Ronde is not acceptable for a guide unless taken out by objective danger. In fact he also took a huge fall on his guides assessment on the Ben and again a single ice screw. This is incompetency and Smiler has since left the guides. I asked him about the assessment accident and he freely admitted that he should have set up a better belay.

8
 Howard J 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Alpine accidents are more likely to be the result of several things going wrong and it may be more difficult to show that they could be attributed to one person's negligence. But that's not to say that a claim could never arise. Simple belaying accidents, whether indoors or at a crag, are probably more straightforward in most cases.

In a guide-client relationship the professional will always be held to a higher standard than an amateur.  In the Cuthbertson case there was a lot of sympathy for him, and many felt that he had not necessarily made a bad decision in all the circumstances. Sometimes, especially in alpine climbing, you have to trade security for speed, and in that case it ended up badly.

It's easy to say in a forum that suing is contrary to the spirit of climbing, but it's a different matter if you were to suffer life-changing injuries as a direct result of someone's incompetence (and not merely bad luck). In those circumstances you might not only want but actually need compensation for the loss of earnings and extra costs you might face as a result.   And the matter might be taken out of your hands - it might be an insurance company or the family of a dead climber who take legal action, and they are not going to be dissuaded by any romantic ideas about the brotherhood of the rope.

If you behave negligently and that leads to someone else being injured, then you could be held liable and have to pay damages.  That applies whether you're climbing, driving a car or playing tiddlywinks.

 Iamgregp 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Oh right you are. I must have imagined that 5 foot high sign above the main entrance to The Castle then?

And the 4 or 5 times I’ve seen ambulances take people away from there would be the same is as you’d expect at an indoor tiddlywinks venue.

Like I said, climbing is for the most part a very safe activity. I’ve never had a serious accident and, particularly as my daughter was just born this summer and needs her dad to be fit and well, wouldn’t want to either.  If I actually thought it was as dangerous as you seem to think I do I wouldn’t do it.

However, that doesn’t mean it’s as safe as tiddlywinks, stamp collecting or many other benign hobbies.  If you’d like to argue it is please go ahead and I’ll watch you die on that hill

In reply to Howard J:

> If you behave negligently and that leads to someone else being injured, then you could be held liable and have to pay damages.  That applies whether you're climbing, driving a car or playing tiddlywinks.

I reckon a lot of people think this is all black and white they could never be "negligent" and this all happens to other people. But it's not like that. This is civil law where it's balance of probabilities that can see you lose everything -- slightly better odds than flicking a coin. So, you might do everything right, but if the other side paint a convincing picture of you fault, then that's it, you lose.

 Andy Clarke 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

> I know and like Smiler, but a single ice screw belay and especially for a guide and client is not safe. Also falling on the Tour Ronde is not acceptable for a guide unless taken out by objective danger. In fact he also took a huge fall on his guides assessment on the Ben and again a single ice screw. This is incompetency and Smiler has since left the guides. I asked him about the assessment accident and he freely admitted that he should have set up a better belay.

Smiler sadly died in 2019, which people may not realise from the phrasing of your post.

 Martin Haworth 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor: I guess it isn’t difficult to see a future where climbers have to have some form of compulsory insurance in case they are the cause of an accident or suffer an injury from an accident. It is sometimes difficult for newcomers to climbing to make a judgement about what is good practice and what is incompetence.
Pretty much everyone I know takes out insurance cover to climb abroad or in the Alps(which I appreciate is more for rescue and medical cover).

All instructors must have to have liability insurance

Society is getting more litigious, maybe this is how things will eventually go, not that I would welcome it.

Can you imagine it:

Tied on? Yes

On Belay? Yes

Insurance cover in place? Yes

OK, climb when ready.

 Philb1950 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Andy Clarke:

I didn’t know that and so sad. I last saw Smiler in the Cosmiques hut several years ago. We spent an evening reminiscing. I first got to know him when he was the warden of Ynys Ettws in the early 80,s and we had a few laughs.

 summo 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Society is getting more litigious, maybe this is how things will eventually go, not that I would welcome it.

> Can you imagine it:

> Tied on? Yes

> On Belay? Yes

> are competent to belay? Yes

> OK, climb when ready.

Or perhaps someone coordinating a bunch of students just clarifies who is competent or not. If may not match some avenues of society today, but maybe some of mummies little darlings just need to be told they aren't safe belaying yet. 

 Andy Clarke 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

> I didn’t know that and so sad. I last saw Smiler in the Cosmiques hut several years ago. We spent an evening reminiscing. I first got to know him when he was the warden of Ynys Ettws in the early 80,s and we had a few laughs.

Sorry to break the news. He was a lovely guy. He died of pneumonia/lung cancer, having been climbing in Wales only a couple of weeks before. He was originally from the Wolverhampton area and was a former Chair of my local club, Wolves MC. I think the last time I saw him was in the queue for the Index chairlift, in Cham. He heard my Black Country accent echoing around the slopes and came bounding over!

Post edited at 16:12
 Darron 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Re people belaying poorly at walls. I see this often. It seems to me that 2nds are more concerned with paying out smoothly when the leader is clipping than stopping the leader hitting the deck. Seen this that often that I’ve wondered wether it’s emphasised too much when being trained/ instructed.

 Michael Hood 07 Nov 2021
In reply to thread:

Somebody remind me, did the belayer have 3rd party insurance (can't be bothered to go back through 100+ posts).

If so, then what exactly is the problem with him being sued? The claimant has life changing injuries and will incur many extra costs. The belayer presumably feels some or a lot of responsibility for the accident, regardless of whether he considers himself negligent. He will probably feel relieved that at least the injured climber will get some decent compensation to assist him in future.

If I was involved in an accident with those sort of consequences, I'd want to be sued (BMC membership 3rd party cover) so that the injured party could at least get some compensation (nothing's ever going to bring their previous "state" back).

The downside is that everyone's insurance premiums will go up, but I'd much rather pay a bit more and know that a seriously injured person is not left in financial extremis because of their injuries.

If the belayer was not insured then it becomes a completely different ballgame - suing an uninsured person will not guarantee you anything even if you win. It might mean that the belayer has to make payments from his income for the rest of his working life, but to some extent it will be based on what the court thinks they can afford. I doubt that either party would want to end up in that kind of dependency situation, especially as it's highly likely that the payments would not cover the extra expenses of the injured party.

2
 spenser 07 Nov 2021
In reply to UKB Shark:

I thought it was the same accident, I was being sarcastic as Tyler was demonstrating his lack of intelligence and social skills. 

3
 Rick Graham 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I would humbly suggest that you are going down a dangerously fraught train of thought here .

Being "experienced " includes

1. Knowing how to belay 

2. Knowing to pay attention when belaying.

3. Being able to assess if your belayer has attributes 1+2.

4. Accepting that in spite of 12+3 things can go wrong and accept the consequences. Hence the BMC (and other) Participation Statements.

 summo 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Rick Graham:

On an often quoted learning ladder it's likely both parties could adequately tick 1,2,3 or 4, or were unconsciously unskilled. It should really be their group leader or walls responsibility, unless of course they signed to say they were competent, but how do they know that they weren't competent unless assessed either verbally or practically.

Post edited at 17:33
 Rick Graham 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Rick Graham:

> I would humbly suggest that you are going down a dangerously fraught train of thought here .

> Being "experienced " includes

> 1. Knowing how to belay 

> 2. Knowing to pay attention when belaying.

> 3. Being able to assess if your belayer has attributes 1+2.

> 4. Accepting that in spite of 12+3 things can go wrong and accept the consequences. Hence the BMC (and other) Participation Statements.

123+4  are applicable for amateur climbers. For a professional or instructor /guide the legal  situation should be far more complex .

 Howard J 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> I guess it isn’t difficult to see a future where climbers have to have some form of compulsory insurance in case they are the cause of an accident or suffer an injury from an accident.

Fine in theory, but impossible to enforce.  However it would certainly make sense for more climbers to have third party liability insurance. 

Insurance for alpine or sun rock holidays is more to protect yourself, people are familiar with the need for travel insurance and climbers understand that they might need specialist cover for rescue and medical costs. Third party liability is more abstract, and it is very apparent from this and many other threads on the subject that a lot of people don't understand that if they were to cause an accident they could get sued. It makes sense to have liability insurance, not only to protect your own assets but to protect your mates who might be injured if you were to make a mistake (and none of us is immune from those).

It is one of the benefits of being a BMC member, but whilst the BMC mentions it on its website it doesn't really explain why this is necessary or desirable. Some people might be covered through their household insurance, but that will depend on the individual policy. That probably leaves a great many climbers with no insurance, but that doesn't make them immune from legal action.

 Michael Hood 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Rick Graham:

I'm not debating the rights/wrongs of instructing, training, experience etc.

I'm merely saying that if someone has 3rd party insurance then a seriously injured party may at least be able to get compensation to cover their future extra expenditure, loss of earnings etc. So that they're not financially clobbered as well as being injured/disabled etc. Surely that's a good thing even though it may result in extra cost for all.

A much better situation than trying to sue an uninsured person.

1
 Howard J 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Rick Graham:

It can't be reduced to tick boxes as you appear to suggest. The law of tort requires that your behaviour meets the the standard that a ‘reasonable person’ would adopt in the occupation or activity in question.  In the context of a belaying accident, the question would be whether an ordinarily competent climber could have been expected to hold the fall.  A professional would be held to a higher standard (but still only that of the "reasonable professional").  If the climber knew the belayer was a novice who might not be able to belay to the required standard then that might be a mitigating factor, but that would be for a court to decide.  Each case depends on its own facts, and these are seldom simple or straightforward.

Participation statements are a useful reminder of the risks, but can't exclude liability  Self-reliance is an important element of climbing, but we climb as a team and when we participate our acceptance of the risks is usually based on the assumption that we can depend on our belayer.

1
 RachaelH 07 Nov 2021
In reply to UKB Shark:

I would imagine the ref to £200k is the statement of value for the claim which determines how much the court fee is.  The highest value claims are usually expressed to be "in excess of £200k" which means anything from £200k.....the court fee would therefore be £10,000.00 unless the Claimant was entitled to a fee remission.

The likely value of this particular claim would be in the £millions not £200k....just speculating of course but likely the Daily Mail is not entirely correct

 UKB Shark 07 Nov 2021
In reply to RachaelH:

Good sleuthing

 crayefish 07 Nov 2021
In reply to dunc56:

> I'd want to know who paid the belayer £200k to let go of the rope !

Exactly what I thought 🤣

Probably thought there was a book in it.  "Touching the Devoid"?

2
 nThomp 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, it seems pretty unpleasant of the Daily Mail (not entirely surprised) to publish a picture of the belayer. 

He no doubt feels awful enough at his novice mistake, is dealing with his own culpability, without the need for his name, face and "crime" to be registered in such clear detail for any future partner, employer, or friend to discover on a basic Google search. 

Seems unnecessary, especially given the number of people who drop climbing partners every other month, potentially from risker positions, and avoid infamy by only luck and the grace of God.

 SierraDelta 07 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J

Probably worth stressing that this is still an unusual case. It's very uncommon for climbing partners to be sued after accidents and the law accommodates reasonable mistakes and accidents.

Without knowing the specifics of this case I'm assuming it's beyond a simple or understandable accident? If someone was to let go of the rope, start playing with their phone or do something else really stupid, then even in less litigious times you'd probably expect them to be sued. 

In reply to Howard J:

> Fine in theory, but impossible to enforce.  However it would certainly make sense for more climbers to have third party liability insurance. 

Impossible to enforce outside, very easy to enforce inside.  For example the walls could add an  insurance surcharge to the entrance fee of anyone that couldn't show a BMC/MCOFS membership card or some other evidence of their own 3rd party insurance.

Andy Gamisou 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Have you forgotten the famous incident at the '95 World Champs?

Last time I climbed at a climbing wall with someone whose views seem aligned with yours they got kicked out first route of the day.  At someone's request I compiled a short monologue of the incident:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rocktalk/stood_up_in_snowdonia-664853?v=1...

Enjoy (or not)

2
 Iamgregp 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

> A crucial part of that mitigation is that there is someone to hold the rope and catch us if we fall.  If they negligently fail to do that, then they could be legally liable.  They owe a legal duty of care to the other person and this isn't diminished simply because they are both engaged in a potentially dangerous activity. Climbing isn't excused from the normal laws of the land.  However accidents can happen which are not the fault of anyone else, and in that case you're on your own.

Oh absolutely I agree with all of this, and like I said, I'm in two minds as to how I feel about this.  Of course the normal rules of the land apply in a climbing environment but I guess there's a question as to whether they always are going to be applied to the full force of the law.

For example, the normal rules of law apply on a football pitch, and players up and down the country every week must have the legs or ankles broken by late, rash, or clumsy tackles.  However the amount of these incidents that end up in litigation must be less than 1%. 

Despite the fact that it was another person's fault that they are now injured, often gravely, most players accept that it's part of football, they don't often seek to sue the other player!

(There have been times when this has happened of course, but this is usually top level pros where vast sums of money and insurers are involved.  The bulk of football is grass roots where the same cannot be said) 

> I'm not sure how we're supposed to judge whether our belayer is competent to catch us.  Deliberately jumping off has obvious flaws, if it turns out they're not.  I suppose you could hope someone else falls while they're belaying, but that may not be possible. I'm a cautious climber who tries to avoid falling, so most of the people I climb with have never had to catch me and I just have to trust in their wider experience.  For that matter, it must be several years since I last had to hold a significant fall, and my partners have to rely on my previous experience of holding falls using a variety of methods (including body belays, Sticht plates and even ATCs) to feel confident that I could do so.

Fair point.  Gut instinct?  I jumped on a sport route this summer with a guy who I had just met 10 minutes previous.  He was using an ATC but I could just tell he was going to be fine.  Sport climbing's different though.  I fall and hold falls every time I climb and could tell this guy was the same, knew I'd be fine if I fell.  Which I did.  

 summo 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Fair point.  Gut instinct?  I jumped on a sport route this summer with a guy who I had just met 10 minutes previous.  He was using an ATC but I could just tell he was going to be fine.  Sport climbing's different though.  I fall and hold falls every time I climb and could tell this guy was the same, knew I'd be fine if I fell.  Which I did.  

I think most of us could suss out a bluffer during a ten minute walk in, if not certainly by their admin gearing up. I think it's subconscious stuff, like just the way folk move, terminology, how worn their kit is, things we don't deliberately look for. 

 Iamgregp 08 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Yeah I agree 100%.  Was going to say similar but thought people would question me.

You just know don't you?  Even before they've tied in I know if somebody knows what they're doing...

Same with when I used to skateboard when I was a kid - you could tell before someone even got on their board whether they were any good or not - the way the held and carried it, the wear pattern on their shoes, trucks and deck.  How they got on the thing once they started....  You could tell before they did their first push.

3
 wercat 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

"He was using an ATC"

eh?  Is there something I should know ...?

Post edited at 12:12
 Iamgregp 08 Nov 2021
In reply to wercat:

Sorry I don't understand the question.

Could you rephrase?

 wercat 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

I don't know if I picked up the wrong nuance but it sounded as if using and ATC wasn't a good thing?

 Iamgregp 08 Nov 2021
In reply to wercat:

ATC's are fine for people who know what they're doing.  If I didn't think that I wouldn't have jumped on a route that I knew I stood a fair chance of falling off of!

And let's be honest, whether it's an ATC, or a Gri Gri or some other ABD, it's never the belay the device that is at fault when things go wrong - it's user error. 

Post edited at 12:30
 Offwidth 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

I used to 'just know' people were experienced enough to pay proper attention to belaying and was proved wrong too often: they were experienced enough but were still not belaying well. I think people should take care, especially indoors, as some of the worst offenders I see, especially indoors, are those who should know better; in such a context trusting someone in ten minutes seems weird. I want to see belayers focussed on their leader and not looking the other way chatting to mates (or worse still the small number showing basic belay technique errors that should have been dealt with decades ago).

1
 Jim Hamilton 08 Nov 2021
In reply to SierraDelta:

> I was one of those people responsible at university clubs. Top rope belaying standards on crags and indoor walls is something that clubs have no excuse not to be keeping an eye on. It's one of the simplest risks to control

Is there an accepted thought on belay glasses? I think they make the belayer concentrate more on the lead climber and help prevent being distracted by chit chat etc, but possibly their use creates other problems.  

1
 Howard J 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Only a tiny minority of accidents in any activity, not just sport, end up in a legal claim.

Using your football example, late, rash or clumsy tackles might not be negligent in the legal sense. The player would have be behaving in a way which did not meet the standards expected of a reasonable amateur player. It would have to be a pretty extreme case to go beyond the normal rough and tumble which is to be expected. The courts accept that accidents happen, and even if someone can be shown to have been the cause it doesn't always follow that they will be liable.

Secondly, the value of the claim has a bearing.  Going to law is expensive, and contrary to popular belief you don't get all your legal costs paid even if you win.  Some elements of legal advice aren't eligible to be recovered, and the court may look at the behaviour of both parties (one person is seldom 100% to blame) and award costs accordingly.  It is usually only worth going down that path if significant loss has resulted from the injury and the damages claim is high enough to justify it.  Put in that context even a broken leg might not be worth suing over if it will recover fairly quickly with minimal effect on earnings and no long-term consequences.

"No win-no fee" has one the one hand made it easier to seek justice at less financial risk, but has encouraged ambulance chasing which can result in claims being made which don't have much merit.  However most claims will end up either being dropped or in an out-of-court settlement.  Very few will reach court, and even fewer reported in the mainstream press.

I suspect that in some respects injury at the hands of another is far less likely in climbing than in football or other contact sports, although the outcome of an accident is likely to be more serious  I would guess that most climbing accidents are the result of a combination of factors, in which the behaviour of one of the parties is only one, and then may not achieve the standard required to be considered negligent in law.

 TomD89 08 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

> Seems unnecessary, especially given the number of people who drop climbing partners every other month, potentially from risker positions, and avoid infamy by only luck and the grace of God.

I think your perhaps minimising how negligent it is to allow someone to fall from the top of an indoor route. How mentally checked out do you have to be to allow this? 

Have you ever dropped a partner from the top of a route? Has anyone on this thread done so? If not, I suspect that this is actually pretty uncommon.

This is not comparable to decking outdoors on lead from the first 1-2meters before/above the first bolt, gear ripping out or some other unexpected outdoor situation. Dropping someone from 30ft when your only job really is to keep one hand on part of the rope in otherwise controlled conditions is totally ridiculous. 

The belayer having a sudden stroke/heart attack/feinting or something is about the only forgivable scenario. Being novice isn't an excuse, you ask questions and make certain of the safety requirements before you commit to something like belaying. If you grabbed any random off the street totally unfamiliar with climbing and said "just belay this guy quickly" you'd be certain they'd make certain of how to stop the other person falling before agreeing.

5
 Iamgregp 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

Good post, though I worry the ambulance chasing no-win no fee firms are on the rise.

Like I said really not sure how I feel about this case....

Either way I would hope it wouldn't set a precedent and is an exception that doesn't become the norm as I think we would all agree that if this type of thing became more common it could only be negative for the climbing. 

 Duncan Bourne 08 Nov 2021
In reply to dunc56:

I was thinking that too!

 Howard J 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I used to 'just know' people were experienced enough to pay proper attention to belaying and was proved wrong too often: they were experienced enough but were still not belaying well. 

I used to know someone like that. A really nice chap, and an experienced climber at about VS.  However his judgement was questionable, to put it kindly.  I was following him up a multi-pitch when I saw him miss the obvious bolted belay and carry on until he ran out of rope, where he had to belay to a flimsy-looking sapling.  Further up the same route I realised he had tied in to the bolt with a quick-release highwayman's hitch, which he justified on the ground that it "saved time" (how long to tie and untie a clove-hitch?).  His belaying was inattentive at best.  However all this only became apparent after you had been climbing with him for a while, it certainly wasn't from his demeanour beforehand.  He refused to accept any advice or to acknowledge that he might be doing anything wrong. Fortunately no one was injured, and he left of his own volition, probably because after a while no one would climb with him.

 Rob Parsons 08 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Have you ever dropped a partner from the top of a route? Has anyone on this thread done so? If not, I suspect that this is actually pretty uncommon.

> ... Dropping someone from 30ft when your only job really is to keep one hand on part of the rope in otherwise controlled conditions is totally ridiculous. 

> The belayer having a sudden stroke/heart attack/feinting or something is about the only forgivable scenario.

Exactly.

1
 Offwidth 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

I was looking up comparative death rates the other day... couldn't find the old table I used but found the link below. UK trad rock climbing comes out as a lot safer than many might expect, because most climbers do pay attention outdoors.

http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/sports.html

 Howard J 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Either way I would hope it wouldn't set a precedent and is an exception that doesn't become the norm as I think we would all agree that if this type of thing became more common it could only be negative for the climbing. 

I think for the reasons I outlined in my previous post this is only likely to happen in exceptional circumstances.  However in situations like the one which kicked off this thread, where someone has been left with life-changing injuries as a result of another's negligence (which is is reported has been admitted) I don't see it as a bad thing that there is a process which enables them to claim the additional costs which they will have to incur to adapt to their new life.  

 deepsoup 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

OT really, but that's a highly suspicious looking table of figures.

I think we all know that UK trad climbing is safer than many might expect (certainly if the 'many' in question are many non-climbing Daily Mail readers) - but you'd be on dodgy ground drawing any conclusions from the rankings there.

 nThomp 08 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> I think your perhaps minimising how negligent it is to allow someone to fall from the top of an indoor route. How mentally checked out do you have to be to allow this? 

Never. Never even close I don't think, in two decades of climbing. 

My usual climbing partner, more capable, more enthusiastic and longer in the sport than I decked at my local climbing wall about ten years ago after forgetting to tie in however.  

Ashima Shiraishi's own father dropped her 45ft. 

It can happen to the very best of us, while the most absent-minded could go a lifetime without it ever happening.

So I think I'm perfectly capable of screwing up and dropping a partner.  I keep that fallibility in my mind. I would like my climbing partners to keep that fallibility in mind also.  It is what keeps us safe. I'd rather not climb with the person who thinks they are too good to make such a mistake.

And for all we know, this lad was nervous, doing his best, and maybe thought he was doing everything right. His hand not gripping the rope firmly for a fraction of a second.  

> The belayer having a sudden stroke/heart attack/feinting or something is about the only forgivable scenario.

It may not be forgivable.  You are after all putting your life in that person's hands.  I would expect no forgiveness if my partner was paralysed through my actions.

But that would be punishment enough.  There is no need to drag someone through the court of permanent public condemnation, especially when the climber himself apparently harbours no anger.

 Offwidth 08 Nov 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

I'd agree it's suspect but it won't be a huge amount wrong. The table I once had was a UK sport comparison of deaths and serious injuries. It might even be the one linked in that list (now a dead link).

One link I did find was Australian

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/39/8/573

Post edited at 15:25
1
 TomD89 08 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

> Never. Never even close I don't think, in two decades of climbing. 

> My usual climbing partner, more capable, more enthusiastic and longer in the sport than I decked at my local climbing wall about ten years ago after forgetting to tie in however.  

I'd get a new partner. If you were belaying him and let him climb without checking his knot you're just as much to blame.

Post edited at 15:33
17
 summo 08 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> I'd get a new partner. If you were belaying him and let him climb without checking his knot you're just as much to blame.

It's best to develop your own system, an order of events, say: tie in, extenders, route description, check belayer is ready.... then as you step forward you look down to scan your own harness and knot again. Did someone distract you mid way through gearing up, did you undo the harness to loose a layer, go to toilet etc. If your belayer is double checking, discreetly or overtly then great, but never presume, it's your life! 

 nThomp 08 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> I'd get a new partner. If you were belaying him and let him climb without checking his knot you're just as much to blame.

Wasn't climbing with me at the time. 

Great climber, great belayer. Most of all, great friend.  Hardly going to abandon that on your suggestion.

Momentary lapses happen to all of us.

 Howard J 08 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

nThomp has put it perfectly.  None of us, no matter how experienced or apparently competent, are immune from making mistakes, and we would all do well to remember.  Are modern climbers brought up on Whymper's words (or even know who he was)?

“Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end.”

> There is no need to drag someone through the court of permanent public condemnation, especially when the climber himself apparently harbours no anger.

Condemnation or forgiveness are for the individuals involved. I feel that both the climbers in the reported case deserve our sympathy. Fortunately the actual courts are concerned only with determining liability and awarding damages, which are calculated based on the actual loss suffered.  Punitive damages are unusual, and usually only where the action was deliberate.  So far as I am aware they are not awarded in negligence cases.

 Pedro50 08 Nov 2021

At the Cheedale Cornice once I looked across at a belayer about 10m away. I could see that his grigri looked odd. He had only clipped one of the two eyes into the biner. I sidled up behind him, clipped the rope tail into my own grigri before alerting him. He was quite grateful.

 mrjonathanr 08 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp

> Momentary lapses happen to all of us.

This is exactly why you need a buddy check, every time. Personally, I feel climbing indoors is more dangerous than outside because the informal and safe seeming setting encourages people to be blasé about managing risk. Most are fully aware they are in dangerous terrain outdoors.

Your point is spot on. I visited a friend in hospital a few summers ago after an accident where he was lowered off the end of the rope. Combined experience of climber and belayer exceeded 70 years. And high quality, daily experience at that.

Another truly elite partner fell many metres after failing to tie in securely and lived to tell the tale.

We all make mistakes. 

In reply to nThomp:

> Wasn't climbing with me at the time. 

> Great climber, great belayer. Most of all, great friend.  Hardly going to abandon that on your suggestion.

> Momentary lapses happen to all of us.

The people who scare me as climbing partners (or drivers) are those who have absolute confidence in their own abilities and are ready to rush to judgement when others have an accident.   

Often it is a sign of inexperience or youth.    If you think something is trivial you probably haven't encountered the cases where it isn't.   The best approach is to assume everyone is fallible and build systems to mitigate it.

 TomD89 09 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

> Great climber, great belayer. Most of all, great friend.  Hardly going to abandon that on your suggestion.

> Momentary lapses happen to all of us.

Not when climbing at height, you don't get he luxury of momentary lapses. You pay attention and use basic best practice checking to prevent this. It's not hard and there isn't an excuse for complacency and lapses. 

If the total basics like keeping hold of the rope and tying in are being missed then I don't care how good of a friend or climber someone is frankly. That won't be any comfort while dealing with the life changing injuries suffered from being dropped. 

13
 Offwidth 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Actually in industrial settings there are always back-up systems in place because rope access standards are set knowing even the most experienced and careful can suffer a lapse in concentration. Routine reduces focus and that increases the likelihood of a mistake. We are dealing with human psychology.

How many really careful top climbers do you need to hear from who are normally very focused but have been dropped or have dropped others (or have been distracted tying in etc) before you realise no one is infallible? Everyone can make a mistake that could lead to an accident.  What we need to do is try to pay attention (especially important if distraction is an issue) and use systems (especially buddy checks and clear pre-set communication) that mitigate against lapses. On communications, a friend of mine was dropped the height of a crag as his belayer thought he heard safe when in fact he was asked to take. How many climbing pairs don't have a practiced system of rope tugs for long routes on windy days?

I'd add to what mrjohnathonr says above. Indoor roped venues are much riskier than they should be. Part of this is because they are social spaces: it adds to the attraction of being there but if this distracts belayers it can detract from the safety.  There are also some common lead problems indoors that too many climbers are not aware of (or are ignoring). Ropes stretch and if you do the math that means until the 4th bolt is clipped on some normal bolt spacings the leader can in some fairly standard belay circumstances hit the ground (or a belayer in the fall line!). With significant slack in the system they can deck from above the 4th bolt. It would be good to see bolt spacing low on walls looked at; and also standard setting advice of no hard, unusual or reachy moves for the route grade until after the 4th bolt. Clip close to your waist on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th bolt to cut the fall distance and risk. Learning how to soften a fall can be useful but belayers should keep slack out of their belaying until the climber is quite high on the wall. Belaying needs great care on lead if the falling leader is a significantly heavier (use sandbags!). The shock load of a lead fall when belaying well out from the wall can cause problems for belayers of equal weight; even if the belayer can hold their position, if the fall is from low on the wall the leader can hit the tightening rope and get spun...hitting the ground on rope stretch feet first might break an ankle.... head or back first could be serious. All very NOT tiddlywinks (and far from simple).

I would agree totally that a belayer who is clearly incapable of paying attention on a normal consistent basis should be told (in my experience it probably won't help) and is best avoided.

Post edited at 10:41
 nThomp 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

I think we delude ourselves, or are selective, in remembering how attentive we have been. In those thousands of hours stood at the end of a rope in a lifetime of climbing. 

Why wouldn't we? I've never had an accident therefore I *must* be doing things differently <properly> from the people who do have accidents, surely?

In my partner's case, he tied in, but just not through the harness. I assume he was distracted, talking possibly.  One ties in and unties dozens of times a session at an indoor wall.  The odds only need to be higher than zero for it to become an inevitability that someone at a climbing wall somewhere in the UK will have an accident this year. It doesn't matter how attentive you are 99.999% of the time, it can still be you.

Those that don't have accidents keep on thinking they are immune and doing everything correctly, while the most unluckiest of person can end up with the swiss cheese holes all aligning; a belay device dropped, a partner dealing with a tangle, a loud noise, someone shouting "rope", all coinciding at a critical moment, all usually meaning the climber/belayer would restart their procedure...but this time not, and for whatever reason the final-check tug on the rope and visual observation of the harness didn't reveal. 

I have always thought climbing has a gaping hole in its safety culture.  For all the talk of "never release the dead-end" there is little, sober, blame-free, analysis of accidents. It breeds complacency.  Other industries recognised exactly this failing in their safety culture and have changed dramatically in the last 50 years.  Climbing has, for the most part, vehemently dug its heels in against that learnt wisdom: "There's no problem here, with me, it's all those other irresponsible people who, unlike me, aren't 100% on-the-ball at all critical times".

 Offwidth 09 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

I'm not at all convinced climbing organisations are so complacent. The main complacency I see is too many climbers not paying proper attention: whether it be when they start climbing (...or start a new climbing game....sometimes due to failure in the way they are introduced);  to systems and equipment (and the formal advice and labelled limitations on these);  ignoring basic checks that cut risk of mistakes (especially things like buddy checks  that cut risks of distraction);  or not staying focused in all situations where there is a risk (don't relax away from the riskiest sections). Mistakes are way more common in the inexperienced but avoidable risk is too high in the experienced due to poor practice, despite often excellent advice and the availability of high quality training. I'm way more concerned  about complacency at organisational level in sports like rugby or in activities like horse riding. Look and see how many activities have a participation statement explicitly stating risks like climbing has.

Anyhow, if we worked on a primacy of risk reduction in climbing we wouldn't lead climb and certainly never anywhere with significant objective risk ( nor would we play rugby, swim or ride a horse).

As an example of problems consistently ignored by experienced climbers the publication of Dill's excellent analysis of accidents in Yosemite (and its use in education for those considering big wall climbs) hasn't stopped the accidents happening nor the sadness that they more often than not have preventable causes. People on big walls are nearly always experienced climbers and arguably should know better.

http://www.bluebison.net/yosar/alive.htm

"at least 80% of the fatalities and many injuries, were easily preventable.  In case after case, ignorance, a casual attitude, and/or some form of distraction proved to be the most dangerous aspects of the sport."

 TomD89 09 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

> In my partner's case, he tied in, but just not through the harness. I assume he was distracted, talking possibly. 

So that's the excuse? Distracted by talking, totally inevitable given the statistics? No room for personal accountability whatsoever?

If 1 in every 10,000 climbers makes this mistake that is not indicative that it could happen to anyone, only to the most switched off and complacent. I've made it clear I'm not talking about all climbing related accidents, only the very basics like dropping someone from the top of an indoor route by letting go of the rope or completely failing to check someone is tied into their harness correctly. Silly to try and conflate that with other, less controllable, circumstances.

Perhaps excuse making contributes to this inability to double check someone is tied in? I suppose on a long enough timeline I'm destined to leave the house with no trousers on? It's out of my control, no matter how careful I am it's statistically inevitable? Certainly it's less life threatening than not tying into a harness correctly and I don't necessarily have a second person to check me, so should be quite common?

Maybe it's just me, I wouldn't want to partner with anyone who has a history of not checking the basics, perhaps I'm just fussy like that.

Post edited at 11:59
16
 Jamie Wakeham 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> If 1 in every 10,000 climbers makes this mistake that is not indicative that it could happen to anyone, only to the most switched off and complacent.

So switched off and complacent people like Lynn Hill and John Long?

 TomD89 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> So switched off and complacent people like Lynn Hill and John Long?

They've dropped someone by letting go on the rope in a controlled indoor setting or failed to checked they/a partner are actually tied in? If so, then yes totally switched off and complacent from a basic safety standpoint, irrespective of how big their name is or how skilled they are on the wall.

10
 Jamie Wakeham 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Rather famously, both have failed to finish rethreaded fig 8s and have decked as a result; JL in an indoor wall, LH at Buoux.

If they can f*ck that up, so can you or I.

 TomD89 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

I'd never even consider starting up a climb unless I was certain I was tied in correctly. What mistakes Lynn Hill made in her past is of no relevance. You have to admit she was being complacent and inattentive to start a climb with an unfinished knot no? You think it's impossible for someone to be careful enough to avoid this very basic mistake?

I'm extremely keen not to fall from height over something I had more or less total control over. Nothing forces me to begin a climb until I'm sure I'm safe in that respect. I can make a pretty safe wager I am more fearful than Lynn Hill.

Using well known professionals to excuse this sort of thing is odd. Can professionals become complacent? Overfamiliarity and comfort with the dangers of climbing is exactly what breeds complacency. 

Post edited at 12:44
22
 Howard J 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Buddy checks are a comparatively recent innovation in climbing.  From observation I would say that a lot of climbers don't do them at all, some seem a bit embarrassed (as if it implies criticism or lack of trust) and some seem to resent being checked, probably for the same reasons.

People are easily distracted, so talking to someone while they are tying in should be a no-no, but this is less likely if you have a fixed routine to go through. Putting your trousers on in the morning is part of a routine embedded in your mind since early childhood, so you are unlikely to forget.  How many climbers follow fixed routines to ensure they don't overlook something?  There is no equivalent of "pre-flight checks" (it's 50 years since I last flew a glider, but I can still remember the mnemonic).

As the Yosemite report points out, a lot of accidents were due to complacency by experienced climbers, often because of engrained bad habits which they had never questioned because they'd always got away with it.  There isn't a culture of continuous training or learning new skills, and formal qualifications are aimed only at those aiming to work as instructors - there is no equivalent of RYA sailing or PADI diving qualifications. Is self-reliance any less important in those sports? I doubt it.

For most climbers skills development means picking up new ideas from mates, magazines and the internet, and some sources may not be reliable.  Some of the habits that people get into seem questionable from a safety point of view - look at how helmets became unfashionable, for example.  

Of course mistakes shouldn't happen, but being aware that they can isn't to excuse them.  Anyone who thinks they are too thorough to miss something, or too focussed to let themselves be distracted, or too aware not to have fallen in to bad habits is probably kidding themselves.

 mrjonathanr 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> I'd never even consider starting up a climb unless I was certain I was tied in correctly. What mistakes Lynn Hill made in her past is of no relevance. You have to admit she was being complacent and inattentive to start a climb with an unfinished knot no? You think it's impossible for someone to be careful enough to avoid this very basic mistake?

I climbed with her; we discussed it.

I think you are overconfident in your judgment Tom.  Like the poster above who compared factors aligning to matching holes in Swiss cheese, circumstances can catch even very careful people out. For sure we will be responsible in some way for the accident occurring, but none of us is infallible.
 

I think it is best to look for ways to mitigate risk that don’t rely completely on us always getting it right.

 Qwerty2019 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

It is getting more and more frustrating for me at local roped walls when it comes to people socialising at the foot of the wall.  It does not surprise me at all that mistakes happen because there is just too much going on.

I get that climbing is a social activity but the socialising, imo, should be done in areas away from the wall, when having a rest etc.  Too many stand at the bottom of walls taking 15mins to put a pair of shoes on and tie in whilst they chat away.  Quite often the rope will just be left hanging in the draws while they piss about.  Then another mate will walk by and they chat a bit more and eventually after a long period they decide its time to pull on.  No buddy check, no communication and its sometimes difficult to imagine that they are now risking a life if they dont switch on.

Then you look around the wall and you see the piles of ropes, shoes, coats etc strewn across the floor.  I have often belayed, taken a step back for whatever reason and found my feet entangled in someones Down jacket.  Whats so difficult with finishing a climb, picking your gear up and taking it away from the foot of the wall?

The wall i climb at it one of the strictest walls going for rules and even they dont police it very well.  The foot of the walls should be there for climbing.  The 'social areas' should be buzzing with chat for those who wish to do so imo.  

 Offwidth 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

I wouldn't be setting diving qualifications on PADI standards having seen the difference and extra risk acceptance in the real world compared with say what I saw as a kid around BSAC. Risks are a lot higher than trad climbing: someone dies roughly every month just at Stoney Cove. I dived on a PADI linked introductory trip in the med with a shared buddy and no checks on previous experience in a fairly strong current..

 Qwerty2019 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

One of the walls we use allows families to use the comp wall to set up a swing for the kids (Nice big overhang) whilst people are climbing on the next line.  I would like to see them explain a serious incident to their insurers on that one.

Post edited at 13:21
 TomD89 09 Nov 2021
In reply to mrjonathanr:

What Swiss cheese factors align to start climbing before finishing tying in? Both climber and belayer distracted by something 'more important' than not falling to your death or permanently ending your ability to climb? Maybe the people I climb with  don't have conversation interesting enough to overcome this basic human survival instinct.

About the only thing I'm confident of in climbing is my ability to not start a climb without insuring I'm tied in properly. I've managed plenty of other stupid mistakes ON the wall, but never that mistake. I'm honestly too terrified of the consequences to be distracted to that extent.

> I think it is best to look for ways to mitigate risk that don’t rely completely on us always getting it right.

Such as? The buddy check system everyone should already be doing (which any individual climber is responsible for arranging with a given partner if they value their safety)? Or something else?

Post edited at 14:10
17
 mrjonathanr 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

I find your tone abrasive but I will try to answer your question.

Buddy check- yes. Not just as a little routine, as a permanent mindset. Always checking- the belay, direction of load, the biners, the tie-in, the lot, prior to a climber setting off.

It's an attitude of mind, that pause and check before committing. An integral part of it is the humility to realise that we are susceptible to making dangerous mistakes without realising it. Lots of things can make errors more likely- maybe we are cold, low blood sugar, it's getting dark, work's on your mind at the wall, someone interrupts you, music's too loud etc. If you think you are above that, you are not in the safest place.

1
 TomD89 09 Nov 2021
In reply to mrjonathanr:

> Buddy check- yes. Not just as a little routine, as a permanent mindset. Always checking- the belay, direction of load, the biners, the tie-in, the lot, prior to a climber setting off.

> It's an attitude of mind, that pause and check before committing. 

I couldn't agree more with what you are saying here. For some reason you seem to think I'm claiming some exceptional status because I'm committed to doing exactly what you outline here each time I climb.

 Howard J 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I wouldn't be setting diving qualifications on PADI standards 

My point was less about actual standards than having a culture of ongoing training and certification.  Diving and sailing both have recognised training routes which may, but need not, lead on to professional qualifications.  Climbing seems to offer only professional qualifications, and has no culture of ongoing formal training.  People pick things up as they go along, not always from reliable sources.  

 Howard J 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> About the only thing I'm confident of in climbing is my ability to not start a climb without insuring I'm tied in properly. I've managed plenty of other stupid mistakes ON the wall, but never that mistake. I'm honestly too terrified of the consequences to be distracted to that extent.

I'm terrified of the consequences of abseiling and always check very carefully before committing. That didn't stop me from somehow failing to clip the rope properly last summer.  I still don't understand what led me to miss it. I won't forget the click of the rope snapping through the device in a hurry. Fortunately I was still in balance and had tight hold of the rope, so no harm done or I wouldn't be writing this.

It was the Lynn Hill incident which made people realise the dangers involved in being distracted while tying on.  Despite that, and all these years later, you still see climbers chatting to one another and not buddy-checking, and some still make the very same mistake.  If you are one of those who invariably does buddy-check then you probably are exceptional, or at least in a minority.  The question is not whether we should all be buddy-checking etc - I think we are all agreed on that - but how to change climbing's safety culture so that they are embedded in every climber's routine.  

Post edited at 15:02
 Offwidth 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

You can dive with no formal qualifications and sail a yacht with no formal qualifications. Rock climbing grew from a different background: a cheapish sport, where for many, anything beyond free peer training was not feasible as a pastime. Despite less emphasis on training I'd take what I've seen in modern introductory trad climbing in safety practice over the diving equivalent (more risky and yet too often in contradiction to standards) in the large scale public engagement of beginners. If worldwide diving introduction was strictly run to standards I'd probably say the opposite. 

I chose some training in my climbing but I could afford it. The club I helped run insisted on full Guide instruction (club subsidised), from providers we knew were excellent, for some riskier activities under our remit (winter beginners and improvers) as the extra expense was more than offset by the additional quality of provision and reduced stress on trip leaders. We recommended instruction for navigation and other basic climbing skills and encouraged enrollment on courses and qualification routes.

Post edited at 15:06
 steveriley 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Well heck yes, we're all very fallible. I've never dropped anyone, I'm much more likely to be that annoying person short roping, than gazing into the distance with yards of slack. And yet I once found myself looking up at my mate about to lower off and realising the Grigri was threaded the wrong way. 

 Howard J 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not trying to compare safety standards in different sports, just make a point about cultures of training and certification.  

Looking at the BMC near-miss reports, it is striking how many of them were probably avoidable with a bit more thought or attention to detail (I include my own submissions).  Fortunately most accidents probably require several things to go wrong - even failing to tie in properly is only a problem if the climber then falls.  Climbing is relatively safe not because climbers consistently maintain good practice (you don't have to look far to see the opposite) but because in most cases the mistakes by themselves don't lead to an accident.  In other words, we are often lucky. In slightly different circumstances the holes in the cheese line up and someone is in the situation which started off this thread.

 petemeads 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

It's 30-odd years since my gliding career ended but I still remember CBSIFTCBE and USTALL mnemonics for takeoff and landing. And have twice landed with the Undercarriage up - once solo and, even worse, once dual with and older and more experienced pilot. They do say there are only two sorts of pilot - those that have landed with the wheel up and those that are going to. It's not sufficient just to recite the mantra, you have to think how it relates to your situation. Most training gliders have fixed wheels for a good reason...

 Alex Riley 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

They are fairly new but mountain training now offer a number of recreational "rock skills" courses, from introduction to learn to lead in addition to their instruction qualifications.

The BMC have run similar courses in the past too. 

​​

 Martin Haworth 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> So that's the excuse? Distracted by talking, totally inevitable given the statistics? No room for personal accountability whatsoever?

> If 1 in every 10,000 climbers makes this mistake that is not indicative that it could happen to anyone, only to the most switched off and complacent. I've made it clear I'm not talking about all climbing related accidents, only the very basics like dropping someone from the top of an indoor route by letting go of the rope or completely failing to check someone is tied into their harness correctly. Silly to try and conflate that with other, less controllable, circumstances.

> Perhaps excuse making contributes to this inability to double check someone is tied in? I suppose on a long enough timeline I'm destined to leave the house with no trousers on? It's out of my control, no matter how careful I am it's statistically inevitable? Certainly it's less life threatening than not tying into a harness correctly and I don't necessarily have a second person to check me, so should be quite common?

> Maybe it's just me, I wouldn't want to partner with anyone who has a history of not checking the basics, perhaps I'm just fussy like that.

I wouldn't want to climb with you, you seem to think you are above making mistakes and will never make the mistake of letting go of a rope or tying in incorrectly. 

2
 Andy Clarke 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Alex Riley:

> They are fairly new but mountain training now offer a number of recreational "rock skills" courses, from introduction to learn to lead in addition to their instruction qualifications.

Have they developed a safety check mnemonic, along the lines of those that I think are used in air sports? I do a bit of work at a local wall, and we use the old V/knee/123 and variations on the face/neck/punch or kiss stories for tying a fig 8 - but nothing for a safety/buddy check. I dimly remember an ABCDE for abseiling that I wasn't particularly taken with, as the final E stood for "Everything else..!"

 Alex Riley 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Andy Clarke:

A buddy check is a quick visual inspection to make sure knots are tied and dressed properly and that belay devices are correctly threaded and done up. I don't think it needs anything more than that.

IDEAS, SERENE and ABC are commonly used for teaching belay building and I'm sure some people use others but it's down to the preferred method of the instructor.

 Marek 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> I'd never even consider starting up a climb unless I was certain I was tied in correctly. What mistakes Lynn Hill made in her past is of no relevance.

Except I would bet that before she set off she would have said the same as you (about being certain that she was tied in).

People - ALL people - make mistakes. Anyone who thinks that they don't is deluding themselves and is probably in greater danger than someone who acknowledges that they are fallible and is constantly looking at ways to further protect themselves (and others) from their inevitable lapses.

1
 Marek 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Alex Riley:

Although buddy checks and mnemonics have their place, there is a risk that when overused, they become rote: You go through the motions of checking, but it's just an automatic sequence disconnected from its original purpose. I've seen this at the wall: "Tied in properly?" "Yep." "Err, no you're not!" The climber just replied "Yep" automatically - there hadn't been an issue the previous 99+ times - but fortunately the belayer wasn't just going through the motions. There's evidence that in these sorts of repetitive situations, the climber may have even 'remembered' tying in, but that was a false memory since every act of tying in is pretty much the same as every other. One way of mitigating that risk is to make sure that you mix things up a bit: Keep changing the 'protocol' (e.g., the wording) such that the other party is hearing something 'new' rather than the same as in the last 99+ times. Perhaps even occasionally suggest a recheck even though you though his knot was OK. Just never let 'Tied in?, Yep. OK.' become a mindless mantra disconnected from reality.

 Alex Riley 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Marek:

Agreed, I don't particularly use them when teaching, other than for building belays because I find it helps people conceptualise what a belay consists of rather than anything else.

 Philb1950 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

Why would I want to undergo training to go climbing and by the way guides have to undertake ongoing professional development

1
 Howard J 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

I'm not suggesting needing a certificate in order to be allowed to climb.  What I'm saying is that other sports have more of a culture of getting training from professionals.  And I'm talking about ordinary amateur climbers, not guides or other professionals.

I'm as guilty as anyone, in nearly 50 years' climbing I've had fewer than 10 days professional instruction.  Most of what I know I've picked up along the way, but I've probably picked up some bad habits as well and no doubt there are better ways to do some things. 

 Howard J 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I offer this little gem from the BMC's near-miss reports, without comment

Belayer inattentive and distracted while using assisted braking device without holding the brake stand.

Lead climber visually struggling with the route while the belayer, seemingly oblivious to the climbers nervousness and situation, proceeded to drink cider without any hands on the brake strand with a dangerous amount of slack out.

 

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Andy Clarke:

This is a very late response, but I had two connections with Smiler. The first was when I was about 16/17; I used to bump into him quite often at Tremadoc. I can still remember climbing near him on Gesail, and in the gathering dusk him calling out 'Crack on Rob, crack on!' to save me being benighted.

The second was that I did the Tour Ronde a few days before his accident - it was rock hard ice, conditions were grim, and 'there but for the grace of God' we could have been chopped too. His client's girlfriend wrote an appalling and plain ignorant article in the Guardian, one of the few times I've ever written to a paper to try and correct the record. It wasn't published.

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

I'm late to this but I was on the Tour Ronde a few days before Smiler. We shouldn't have been there in the conditions  - no one else was - but IIRC Smiler was talked into it, against his better judgement, by someone he considered a mate as much a client. And who hasn't embarked on something they shouldn't  have because of a mate?

 wbo2 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

As a beginner you might want to undergo training at basic belaying so you learn how to do it, and not to injure yourself and your friends. 

  In fact if you want to climb at a climbing wall in Norway without an instructor you'll need to produce a certificate/card effectively demonstrating you've had such training.  No brattkort, no climbing except bouldering.  

 In the next couple years that certification will change from using an tube device to an assisted device.  

 UKB Shark 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The Tour Ronde was terrible when I did it in 1985. Thin ice dinner plating off and useless belays on the exposed rock. Might as well have soloed it. 

 Ridge 09 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> I couldn't agree more with what you are saying here. For some reason you seem to think I'm claiming some exceptional status because I'm committed to doing exactly what you outline here each time I climb.

You may be committed, but you're also human, which is why high hazard industries spend a serious amount of time, effort and expense on human factors analysis.

No-one's excusing anything, or saying you're claiming to be exceptional. However you, like the rest of us, are a human, not some fully substantiated automated safety system.

The fact you seem convinced you would never make such an obvious mistake already means you're already subconsciously seeing what you expect to see.

Maybe that confidence has rubbed off on your buddy, who is subconsciously thinking "Tom's absolutely rock solid in his checks, that knots going to be fine".

That's two very small holes in two theoretically independent pieces of Swiss cheese ready to line up right there.

Edit: You also mentioned:

> If 1 in every 10,000 climbers makes this mistake that is not indicative that it could happen to anyone, only to the most switched off and complacent.

Don't think of it of "1 in 10,000 climbers is completely switched off and complacent so they forget to tie in correctly". Think of it as a 1 in 10,000 chance that even the most switched on and focused climber might make that error, which is a far more realistic way of looking at how humans behave. People make mistakes, even you.

Post edited at 21:39
 Martin Haworth 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

I started climbing in the 1980’s and I’ve  never had any formal climbing training and I suspect I am not alone, probably the norm for climbers who started many years ago. 
I don’t mention the above to try and imply that it is in any way the best route, in fact I think most climbers(including me)would benefit from a bit of refresher training, even if only to reinforce good practise.


 

 Alex Riley 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

In addition to keeping things safe I think lots of people would also just get more enjoyment from their climbing with a few pointers from a good instructor (I am saying this as an instructor mind you!). To use a slightly clunky analogy, everyone or at least most people know how to cook and never have any formal lessons, however imagine how much you could learn in a 1:1-2 day with a teaching chef.

1
 whenry 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

I'm not sure that this is really true - for example, you mentioned sailing as an example. Most sailors I know haven't done any sailing courses since learning to sail - and in many cases they learnt from a mate. The people I know that did RYA courses did them as young children, and once their parents felt they were competent, that was it. Exceptions are those who wanted to be instructors or who needed a ticket for insurance or hire purposes, or who have decided to switch from dinghy sailing to big boats without any prior experience  - and that's a bit like getting some instruction if you decide to take up ice climbing and don't have any experienced mates.

With the exceptions of diving and motorsports, I can't think of any sports where experienced practioners get regular training from professionals. Unless you're including coaching - which in climbing is really focused on the movement of climbing rather than how to build a belay - I don't think people have an interest in getting training for something in which they probably already regard themselves as proficient.

 Robert Durran 09 Nov 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

> I know and like Smiler, but a single ice screw belay and especially for a guide and client is not safe. Also falling on the Tour Ronde is not acceptable for a guide unless taken out by objective danger.

I was a witness for the defence in Smiler's trial. I had soloed the route the same morning, passing Smiler and his client just above the bergschrund (I did not know him or who he was but exchanged pleasantries). Overtaking several teams, I was the only person to complete the route that morning so was in a position to report on the conditions of the upper icefield (badly dinner-plating ice) where the accident happened (everyone else was airlifted off I think in the accident's aftermath, but I was unaware of it, completing the face quickly before the sun hit and stonefall began).

My view, as I said in a written statement, was that, with stonefall beginning, Smiler would have had to make a decision between spending time reinforcing his client's belay with a second screw or pushing on as fast as possible to a more sheltered position. This decision would have been made under time pressure, balancing risks, so I don't think he should have been criticised for pushing on fast without placing a second screw. I think it is assumed that he was either hit by a stone or that the ice dinner-plated under him causing the fall.

I believe the expert witnesses who said that "best practice" was that a belay should have more than one screw were unhappy that this bald fact was used to win the case.

If believe that if Smiler was at fault it was in still being on the face when Stonefall began - perhaps starting too late or moving too slowly by having his client share the leading. I was really concerned that I would be asked about this under cross-examination and end up condemning Smiler. In the event, at the last minute, I was told that I would not have to appear in court in person because no cross-examination was requested and my statement was simply read out. I'm not sure the lawyers on either side did a very good job with much understanding of alpine climbing.

I finally met Smiler properly quite a few years later by chance at Ynys Ettws and we ended up having a great day's climbing together at Gogarth. A really great character.

 deepsoup 10 Nov 2021
In reply to whenry:

>  With the exceptions of diving and motorsports, I can't think of any sports where experienced practioners get regular training from professionals. Unless you're including coaching - which in climbing is really focused on the movement of climbing rather than how to build a belay - I don't think people have an interest in getting training for something in which they probably already regard themselves as proficient.

A lot of kayakers do (and a lot don't) invest in regular professional coaching.  Though 'movement skills' and 'safety skills' are perhaps more the same thing than in climbing.  Rolling for example.

The great majority of martial arts training/practice happens in coached club sessions, led by a mixture of professional and volunteer club coaches.  (There's usually an expectation there that the more experienced practitioners will start to get involved in coaching over time.)

 TomD89 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> I wouldn't want to climb with you, you seem to think you are above making mistakes and will never make the mistake of letting go of a rope or tying in incorrectly. 

I religiously use the buddy check system and wouldn't partner with anyone who wasn't also overly cautious in this regard. For exactly this reason I'm confident I wouldn't start up a climb without triple checking twice over.

If you want to read this as some hoighty-toighty claim of infallibility then that's your choice. Not climbing with people who raise alarm bells is a good idea. You can climb with the individual who dropped someone from height because 'we all make mistakes', and I'll climb with people who are confident and demonstrate a grasp of the basics.

If I had any doubt in the ability to tie in and hold the rope I just wouldn't climb, I'd be a danger to myself and others. 

Post edited at 07:23
10
 Alex Riley 10 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

A buddy check isnt going to stop belayer error. All sorts of things out of our control could prevent a belayer from catching us properly, for example device failure (unlikely but possible), medical emergency, interference by a third party (someone falling/lowering onto our belayer?) And that's just climbing inside.

Climbing fundamentally has risk, we can manage the risk but never eliminate it, to say otherwise is naive.

 whenry 10 Nov 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

Yes, I'd forgotten about martial arts. Good point.

 Brown 10 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Why do you do six checks. Surly if you are capable of missing an error in the first five checks you are capable of missing it on the sixth?

This behaviour sounds like a OCD condition where the more you check the less confident you become in the outcome.

Have you ever discovered you are not tied in on check number five for example?

 Neston Climber 10 Nov 2021
In reply to spenser:

Is there a discussion to be had about whether BMC insurance should cover 'indoor' climbing accidents. I don't think it was ever envisaged for this purpose, and is in effect allowing private companies to benefit as they do not have to provide access to cover for there many thousands of customers .

This could help BMC membership stay low and reinforce its focus on indervidual responsibility. 

I would not think it bad if walls insisted on third party insurance for all users, and this could ever be taken out indervidually or for a small amount (probably no more than £1) at sign in. BMC could even sell a indoor top up to members. 

That being said I know many wall users have not even heard of the BMC, and will not have insurance, when they probably should, even at bouldering walls I see many incidents of indervidual negligence that could easily lead to a serious injury. 

 wercat 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Alex Riley:

Something I remember now is "Bind Both Bits" to remind myself not to just tie into the leg loops, something which has only happened at a wall.  I put it down to climbing in the evening (I'm a morning person) and under strange lighting making me less alert rather than distraction. Perhaps why the only climbing accidents I've witnessed have been at walls.

I've never made that mistake outdoors even in busy places

Post edited at 09:20
 Robert Durran 10 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> You can climb with the individual who dropped someone from height because 'we all make mistakes'.

I think that climbing with someone who has made such a drastic error might be particularly safe because they will be paranoid about not repeating it.

 CantClimbTom 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Took someone climbing for their first time, years ago.. . Showed them how to belay with a plate, checked again, all seemed good.  I was on something easy near the top of climb I looked down and noticed he was only holding the live end of the rope, so I shouted kindly words "hold the fu****g rope" so he leant back, both hands cupped to his ears and replied "Wha?". I repeated myself in an even more forthright manner  "HOLD THE FU*****G  ROPE!!!!!!

He was embarrassed and never did it again and is an excellent belayer, became a great climber way better than me (although that's not difficult) I'd trust with my life anytime.

The point is... these things can happen with novices and 99/100 people grow out of doing it. Novices need supervision!

Post edited at 11:03
 Howard J 10 Nov 2021
In reply to whenry:

> I don't think people have an interest in getting training for something in which they probably already regard themselves as proficient.

I think you're quite right, but that's what I'm suggesting should change.  Regarding themselves as proficient doesn't mean that they are.  It is very easy for bad habits to develop without realising, and just because they keep getting away with it doesn't mean what they are doing is safe. The Yosemite report referred to earlier showed that a lot of accidents were to experienced parties who believed themselves to be competent.  The same conclusion can be drawn from the BMC near-miss reports. Besides, old techniques come to be superseded by better ones, so it's good to keep up to date.  Finally the biggest danger seems to come from complacency and inattention.  You can't necessarily train those away, but having your climbing critiqued by a professional might help you to sharpen up.

Once they have learned the basics, many climbers seem to be interested only in training to get fitter or coaching to climb harder.  Wouldn't it be good if they were interested in learning to climb safer? Wouldn't it be good if there was a culture where it was normal to have a periodic skills check?

 TomD89 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

That would apply to forgivable errors, not failing to check you/your partner actually tied in or letting go of the rope because a butterfly fluttered by.

8
 Robert Durran 10 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> That would apply to forgivable errors, not failing to check you/your partner actually tied in or letting go of the rope because a butterfly fluttered by.

Why not?

 lithos 10 Nov 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> Novices need supervision!

and teaching properly in the first place

 TomD89 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

To me that shows someone is too switched off and I wouldn't feel happy climbing with them on the other end of the rope. 

That's me, I'm in the minority so this theoretical person would have no problem finding a partner elsewhere.

5
 Howard J 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Neston Climber:

> Is there a discussion to be had about whether BMC insurance should cover 'indoor' climbing accidents.  I don't think it was ever envisaged for this purpose

Whatever was originally envisaged, indoor climbing has been around for decades and has surely been factored in by now  The underwriters will be constantly reviewing the risks and adjusting their prices accordingly.  The recent big hike in BMC subs was due to the cost of insurance rising following a big indoor claim, but the next big claim could easily come from outdoors.  It's still very good value for money, especially when you consider the other benefits which come with membership. 

As this thread and others have shown, many climbers don't understand third party liability insurance. Not covering indoor climbing would leave them, and perhaps more importantly their climbing partners, at risk.

It's not really any of the climbing walls' business whether or not their customers are insured.  It's not the walls' liability which is at stake, and they have their own insurance for that.  Why have additional admin and add something else to the check-in process which will probably cause arguments with those who disagree or can't produce the right documents?  If they thought there was a commercial benefit from offering insurance then I'm sure they would already be doing it, but since many climbers either already have it (perhaps without realising) or don't understand it then there's probably not a market.

 Jamie Wakeham 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Neston Climber:

I'd go the other way.  The BMC third party insurance is designed to cover exactly this kind of event - thankfully rare but extremely expensive.  

If each wall had to indemnify all users against liability for accidents, then entrance costs would rise astronomically, both to cover the insurance and to pay for the army of floorwalkers who would be needed to watch everyone like a hawk.  

I am a little surprised that walls don't insist on evidence of BMC membership so that they know all users have third party insurance.  I guess they would lose custom that way because, as you say, many indoor only climbers do not have membership.

 Jamie Wakeham 10 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Actually, I think we might be arguing from the same position - a typical UKC result. 

I'd understood your insistence that you could never make this mistake to mean that you don't carry out crosschecks (god I hate the Americanism of 'buddy check').  But actually, are you trying to argue that you can't ever make this mistake because you do crosschecks?

For me, the whole point of telling the Lynn Hill anecdote is to enforce the importance of cross checking.  If her partner had cross checked then it wouldn't have happened; my emphasis is that no-one (even a luminary such as LH) is above being checked like this.

Of course, this is all besides the point of the thread, because what appears to have happened is nothing to do with forgetting what has been trained and everything to do with not having been adequately trained in the first place, and/or misunderstanding the training.  Cross checking wouldn't have prevented this, but an experienced third person on the dead rope would.

And this is precisely what the BMC insurance is to guard against.  The belayer will have been told not to let go, and they did, which was negligent, so it is only right and proper that they be sued for the cost of living with the resulting injuries.  Thankfully their insurance (which they must have if they were a registered member of a BMC club) will cover it.

 Howard J 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> I am a little surprised that walls don't insist on evidence of BMC membership so that they know all users have third party insurance. 

But what about someone who isn't a BMC member but instead claims to be insured by XYZ, or by their household insurance? Is the receptionist expected to read the small print in their policy and decide whether the cover is adequate?  Should they turn away (probably the majority) of their customers who are not BMC members?

It's not the wall's problem whether or not their customers have third party insurance.  Should NCP check your car insurance before you can park in their multi-storey?

 Jamie Wakeham 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

I mean, I'm only a little surprised.  If we take it to the limit, why do floors have floorwalkers at all, if it's not their liability?

I think the status quo is sensible and proportionate, and I'm a bit surprised that it's not veering towards overbearing.

 Howard J 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> I mean, I'm only a little surprised.  If we take it to the limit, why do floors have floorwalkers at all, if it's not their liability?

I guess there are other aspects of health and safety and general behaviour which might be the wall's liability and which they need to keep an eye on.  And even though the wall should not be liable for an accident caused by a customer's negligence there are obvious reputational risks, so it is in their interest to keep an eye out for poor practice to try to prevent accidents occurring. 

Cold commercial interests aside, I don't suppose they want to see anyone get hurt any more than the rest of us.

 MeMeMe 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> I mean, I'm only a little surprised.  If we take it to the limit, why do floors have floorwalkers at all, if it's not their liability?

The people running a wall might feel obligations to their customers in terms of preventing accidents rather than just worrying about strict civil liability after an accident?

 Martin Haworth 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> I mean, I'm only a little surprised.  If we take it to the limit, why do floors have floorwalkers at all, if it's not their liability?

I would think that if a wall were to routinely allow people to climb at their facility without ever doing any checks or inductions, just took their money and waved them through, then they would be likely to be prosecuted/sued if there were accidents. I am not a lawyer and I dont know the regulations around climbing walls but I would guess there is a duty of care, which they would be breaching.

1
 summo 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> I mean, I'm only a little surprised.  If we take it to the limit, why do floors have floorwalkers at all, if it's not their liability?

Climbers with broken legs are rubbish repeat customers?

Ambulances pulling up daily are poor adverts for kids birthday parties? 

Post edited at 19:34
 Jamie Wakeham 10 Nov 2021

And that's my point - they clearly do have some liability and duty of care.  Which is why I am slightly surprised that it's not much more overbearing.  Yet.

1
 John Kelly 10 Nov 2021
In reply to Alex Riley:

> A buddy check isnt going to stop belayer error. All sorts of things out of our control could prevent a belayer from catching us properly, for example device failure (unlikely but possible), medical emergency, interference by a third party (someone falling/lowering onto our belayer?) And that's just climbing inside.

The Revo can reduce or remove many of those risks, no brainer for climbing wall.

4
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> I would think that if a wall were to routinely allow people to climb at their facility without ever doing any checks or inductions, just took their money and waved them through, then they would be likely to be prosecuted/sued if there were accidents. I am not a lawyer and I dont know the regulations around climbing walls but I would guess there is a duty of care, which they would be breaching.

Plenty of walls do exactly that.  If you tick the box to say you are an experienced climber they take your money and you are good to go.

Other walls make you prove you can tie a fig 8 and top rope belay, I must have done that test at GCC five or six times, but you can then go lead climbing.

 Martin Haworth 10 Nov 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Plenty of walls do exactly that.  If you tick the box to say you are an experienced climber they take your money and you are good to go.

Yes, and if there was a serious accident I’m not sure they could defend their  position. Certainly in industry it wouldn’t be an acceptable level of diligence.

> Other walls make you prove you can tie a fig 8 and top rope belay, I must have done that test at GCC five or six times, but you can then go lead climbing.

I have been to a wall(can’t remember which one)where they insisted on doing a belay check, where they watched me belaying, but seems fairly rare. 
Compared to what would be acceptable in an industrial setting the level of checking and due diligence seems pretty poor.

https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1998_files/AJ%201998%201...

A link to the full peace, may be of interest to some  

The dog   on a leash reference is so fitting!

 DOUG SCOTT
Fame and Fortune
Risk, responsibility, and the guided climber
Near the entrance to most Buddhist Monasteries there is a painting of the wheel of life. At the hub of the wheel is a symbolic explanation for all our suffering. There is a pig representing our ignorance, a cockerel representing greedy. desires and a snake representing the anger within us. In our ignorance, we become attached to our desires for such things as fame, fortune and power over others. But no sooner have we gratified one
) set of desires than we set off in pursuit of others, and anyone or anything that seems to thwart the attainment of those desires evokes in us responses of anger and malice.
It is so easy to get on this treadmill of life, but much harder to get off it, as evidenced by myself at 56 still reaching out to an audience for attention, still wanting a slice of the action and acclaim, and still planning new routes on unclimbed Himalayan peaks. There are those, however, whose ambitious desires outstrip their own ability, so that they have to pay others to help them achieve their goals - a hollow victory if they succeed and a course of action that has caused a great deal of suffering to others. When things go wrong or when there is an accident, there are those, too, whose first thought is 'Who shall I blame?' and the second 'How can I make some money out of it?'
The whole of life is an adventure. If it had not been there would be no evolution, no progress. A number of situations have arisen recently where risk-taking and its consequences have not been fully understood and accepted. As a result, the financial cost of adventurous pursuits has increased and the spontaneous initiative to adventure has been diminished.
Climbing Walls
A young woman, Kim Touch, had been to the Philadelphia 

3
 Howard J 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Name Changed 34:

That's an interesting article, and it's hard to disagree with some of his conclusions. However it covers a lot more than personal negligence - the examples given also include occupier's liability and breach of contract.  Crucially, some of them come from America, which not only has a more litigious culture (although we may be heading that way) but also a different attitude towards damages.

In the English courts, damages are based on actual loss or need.  In the case which started this discussion £200k sounds nice to have, but the claim is based on the costs of equipment needed to allow the claimant to continue with at least part of his former life.  Some cases (although apparently not this one) might include loss of future earnings, if the claimant is unable to work.  This is not reward, merely trying to restore what has been taken away, so far as money can do this.

Courts don't always get things right. Judges have to rely on expert evidence, and perhaps decide between contradictory expert opinions.  In the Smiler case the judge relied on the opinion of one expert who said there should be two anchor points in the belay, which is universally accepted to be good practice.  Other experts seem to have failed to argue strongly enough that in the very particular circumstances Smiler's decision to use only one was not negligent.  It was certainly mistaken, since it led to the client's death. Its fair to say that expert opinion remains divided.  The BMG gave Smiler the benefit of the doubt and reinstated him, perhaps the judge gave the benefit of the doubt to the claimant knowing that there was insurance in place.  Whatever your views on the decision, or on whether the claim should have been brought in the first place, it seems to me to be very different from the entirely speculative claims brought by the Philadelphia woman or the disappointed trekkers.

 john arran 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Compared to what would be acceptable in an industrial setting the level of checking and due diligence seems pretty poor.

Compared to what would be acceptable in an industrial setting, the level of checking and due diligence seems appropriately different. The relationship of an independent climber to a leisure facility is very different to that of an employee to a workplace. Climbers are there by choice, nobody is telling them what they should climb or (for the most part) how they should climb it, and there are no financial or other incentives from the facility which may lead a climber to accept a level of risk they otherwise may not be comfortable with. So it is entirely right that climbers are, to a large extent, free to go about their leisure pursuit without the owner of the facility being held responsible for every poor decision they may end up making.

1
 Offwidth 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Name Changed 34:

That's the same article I linked earlier in the thread!?

 Offwidth 11 Nov 2021
In reply to john arran:

I'd agree with that view but I do think walls should check more and should record safety issues more consistently  It was too often the same people I saw making the same mistakes. When you are telling someone about risky belaying several times it becomes a process issue: walls could note this has been done on customer electronic registration to ensure it never happens more than twice in a particular period.

1
 Offwidth 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

I agree with most of that but Smiler was exonerated by the BMG: it wasn't really benefit of doubt. I'd say expert opinion was very strongly on his side even though some climbers continue to snipe (as one does above). When dealing with the extra complications of dinner plating ice there is no guarantee two ice screws would have held his fall. The expert speaking for the defence was said to be unhappy the decision was made primarily on those grounds.

In reply to Offwidth:

> That's the same article I linked earlier in the thread!?

Oh😔

 Iamgregp 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Yeah but yours doesn't work!

 Howard J 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I don't wish to argue over semantics, and by "benefit of the doubt" I didn't mean to imply any criticism of Smiler, with whom I have considerable sympathy. I haven't read the court report or seen all the evidence. I don't suppose anyone can really say one way or the other.  But courts have to make decisions, and sometimes these can be very finely balanced.

 Offwidth 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

That's pretty funny self petard hoisting.

I did check it at the time and it seemed to have a lot of views.... 

 Offwidth 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

Fair enough. I think it also shows courts can struggle with the detail of climbing expertise. The case also shows the extra risks of having a client who is a friend.

In reply to Howard J:

>   It was certainly mistaken, since it led to the client's death. 

That's logically incorrect.  

If the decision he made reduced the probability of a bad outcome then it was the correct decision.  Making the correct decision does not guarantee a favourable outcome.   He could have made the opposite decision and still had a bad outcome.   The fact that risk A eventually resulted in a death does not imply that risk A > risk B at the point in time the decision was made.  If you made the opposite choice to avoid risk A the outcome could have been death due to risk B.

 Iamgregp 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

To be fair a lot of people have clicked on that and nobody has told you that it didn't work till now, so we've only ourselves to blame!

OP Chris_Mellor 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Having read all posts on this topic, and found them carefully considered and thoughtful, my own conclusion, again for what it's worth, is that climbing walls should actively test a climber's ability to hold a fall before letting them belay a lead or top-rope climber.

I think two kinds of test would be good. Firstly, tell the testee who is taking in the rope as a weighted bag (as heavy as an average person) is pulled up the wall, that the bag is going to be dropped in 3 - 2 - 1 minutes, allowing them to prepare, and then get used to the weight. Secondly, there should be a test with an unexpected fall of the weighted bag, to simulate an actual surprise fall by a climber. The bag should not hit the floor in either situation. The testee is not allowed to belay anyone until they have passed such a test.

I think such a requirement would/should increase belying competency in general at climbing walls. The BMC might devise a standard test.

Post edited at 18:03
3
 John Kelly 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Or they could just get a device that locks up automatically 

8
 nThomp 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Seems fair. I'm not sure what the tests are at my local, London, walls to be fair.  But as I recall they seemed to be evaluating 'proper form' and maybe not so much the belayer's ability to catch a surprise fall (though perhaps they do).  

That would be a good test. Could be repeated multiple times.  Is easy to back-up and make safe. And might be the belayers first ever chance to do so. 

I suspect a lot of novices are perfectly fine at taking in and paying out. But might be somewhat panicked when required to catch a fall.

 PaulW 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I like your idea.

Just no idea how it would work at the average wall with a member of staff trying to do an involved 10 minute or so test with a long line of customers impatient to get in.

Yes, walls could employ more staff but prices would rise to pay for them.

 Howard J 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

I recall many years ago using a wall which had a belaying practice tower.  I can't remember where it was (possibly at Loch Eil Centre, now Outward Bound).  Basically it was as you describe, a heavy sack could be dropped so you could practice holding an actual fall without putting somebody else at risk. I've sometimes thought it would be a useful addition to a modern wall as a teaching aid.  

 deepsoup 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

Did it double as a big wall practice tower, with teams hauling the heavy sack back up again?

 Rob Parsons 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

> Having read all posts on this topic, and found them carefully considered and thoughtful, my own conclusion, again for what it's worth, is that climbing walls should actively test a climber's ability to hold a fall before letting them belay a lead or top-rope climber.

Nobody would fail the test: people knowingly being tested would get it right. But accidents (or admitted negligence, as seems to be the case in the incident under discussion in the OP) would still occur.

Your idea would only make sense if all (or even just some) incidents could be shown to be due to somebody having no absolutely idea of how to belay. But I don't think that's the contention.

Post edited at 21:45
1
 wercat 11 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

> I suspect a lot of novices are perfectly fine at taking in and paying out. But might be somewhat panicked when required to catch a fall.

You just can't generalise.  As I posted above I was a novice belayer high up on a multipitch climb the first time I ever climbed a proper route and I was belaying for the very first time that day.

I didn't panic at all when the leader said she was about to fall.  Not having fully grasped how the gear worked bu having exercised considerable care and attention to carry out the drill she'd told me at the bottom properly I quietly wondered, acceptingly, what it would be like when she fell past me over the ledge and pulled me over with her ...  I distinctly remembered telling myself "Don't Panic" but still wondered what was about to happen.   Fortunately everything worked fine and I held her.

Then I started breathing again, just like mission control

Post edited at 22:14
 Iamgregp 11 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

But if a new climber isn’t allowed to belay until they passed the test, how on earth are they going to learn to belay in order to pass the test?

Might as well say drivers aren’t allowed behind the wheel until they have a license….

1
 Offwidth 12 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Don't be silly...they take safe instruction at the wall (with a small fee) as honest new climbers do now.

My concern about Chris's plan is it does nothing to stop the more common problem of experienced belayers not paying proper attention to the climber or their technique. It's why I favour logging such incidents.

 chris_r 12 Nov 2021
In reply to John Kelly:

> Or they could just get a device that locks up automatically 

Are any of the auto-locking/assisted braking devices totally, 100% foolproof?

(I'm still a dinosaur using an ATC from the last century)

 spenser 12 Nov 2021
In reply to chris_r:

The Edelrid Eddy is probably the closest to being foolproof (based on observations where a "friend" decided to demonstrate that it wasn't possible to drop someone using one with me acting as the weight), however it's a horrible belay plate to use and weighs an enormous amount. Given that it's a mechanical device however there is most likely some failure mechanism which would allow someone to be dropped.

Post edited at 11:02
1
 spenser 12 Nov 2021
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

What you've described is broadly similar to what the DAV use as a means of teaching belaying from what I understand. The BMC Technical Committee had a play around with the technique in a meeting shortly after the claim mentioned in your article was raised a couple of years ago.

They have the rope clipped through the 1st/ second draw and have the belayer taking in/ paying out slack as the "climber" walks toward/ away from the wall (or just pulls/ feeds rope through. The belayer faces away from the "climber" who weights the rope (for practice they can give warning, for testing they just do it). For what it's worth it seemed like a really good way of getting used to a new belay plate, and how it handles, without putting anyone at risk. If introducing someone to a Gri Gri who had previously only used tube style plates before I would definitely do this, I'd not have any qualms about doing it in other contexts (including teaching belaying) too.

 wbo2 12 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp: usual what-if-ery...   they go on a course to learn , that includes taking a few falls, and also some falling off themselves.

To PaulW - The Norwegian federation have given me a nice piece of plastic that says I've done and am safe and tested.  All climbing walks here need this, if you want to use a rope, and means they don't have to test you again. 

Personally we've tested some assisted devices the last few weeks,  and there are some good options around. Maybe not 100%, but a lot more than zero

 Iamgregp 12 Nov 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm an honest climber.  I've never taken paid instruction at a climbing wall on how to belay, I learnt off friends like everybody else I know.  

However, I think I'm in agreement with you in that it's complacency that is the issue.

Holding a bag falling from the end of a rope proves nothing other than you can pass a test you were prepared for, and knew was going to happen.  I dare say the lad who dropped his mate right at the top of the thread would have passed the test....

Post edited at 11:40
 Howard J 12 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

The problem is that humans aren't very good at keeping focussed while carrying out routine activities.  This is so even when these activities are potentially dangerous, such as driving as well as climbing. Tying in and belaying are things we do thousands of times, usually with nothing going wrong.  So we lose focus, gaze at the view, start chatting with our mates, or simply start to think about something else.  Then when the unexpected happens (which we probably actually should have expected) we aren't fully prepared.  Unless we have developed the reflexes to react in a technically correct way without having to think about it, our belaying may be ineffective.

Reminding people to stay focussed isn't enough, most of us probably know what we should be doing.  Testing for proper belay technique only shows what people do when they are prepared and focussed.  What is needed is for the correct response to become embedded and instinctive. That means repeated practice.  To be honest, how many of us do that?  

 Iamgregp 12 Nov 2021
In reply to Howard J:

Yeah I think we're arguing the same point  - it's complacency and lack of focus that are the main cause of people being dropped,  not that the belayer can't hold a fall or wouldn't know what to do in the event of one.  That's why the bag dropping test is pointless imho...

You're absolutely right that making holding falls should feel embedded and instinctive, so that you react in the right way even when you weren't expecting it (another reason why the bag test is pointless).

My partner and I take falls literally every time we go climbing (we only climb sport), so we get plenty of practice.  If we haven't taken at least half a dozen falls from trying hard in a session then we'll stick around and do some practice ones so we're pretty good on our falling, catching and being caught....

 Howard J 12 Nov 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> My partner and I take falls literally every time we go climbing (we only climb sport), so we get plenty of practice.  

I'm not sure how typical that is.  When I go to a wall (which admittedly isn't often, and not at all since Covid) I see only a few people working routes and taking proper falls.  Of course their belayers are expecting this.  The majority (including me) seem to trying to avoid falling, and at most it is a slump onto a nearby bolt, usually after a lot of faffing and "watch mes", so again the belayer should be prepared.  I don't see many people taking a lot of falls, especially big ones.

I'm a trad climber, and not a very brave one.  My partners and I try very hard not to fall. You probably take more falls in a week than I have in my entire climbing career. Perhaps that's not typical either.

 John Kelly 12 Nov 2021
In reply to chris_r:

<100% foolproof?>

Probably not but

As I understand it - Revo will always lock without any human intervention when the rope speed exceeds 4m/s. Testing the locking function before you set off is really easy and in operation just like a standard belay plate. It's heavy, expensive and doesn't rap easily, I wouldn't use it below zero or in filthy conditions but great for the wall.

Post edited at 14:54
 JMAB 12 Nov 2021
In reply to chris_r:

Can never say 100% but I have a WC Revo and I don't see how it could fail short of you not taking in slack or not clipping it to your harness. As far as I can tell you cannot override the locking mechanism by clamping down on something like you can with a grigri.

I wouldn't recommend it over a grigri since it's heavy and won't lock under static weight making it a pain to use when hangdogging, but I cannot see how it can fail and is almost certainly safer than an ATC.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...